JUDGEMENT 1. Heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned Advocate General for Bihar State Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The commission issued an advertisement in July, 2004 for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector, Police. The petitioner who happens to be a permanent resident of Bihar in the district of Darbhanga but at the time of application residing at Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand applied pursuant to the said advertisement addressing his application to the Office of Range DIG, Patna. He was called for the physical test which ne successfully completed. Thereafter, he was intimated by the authorities that his candidature had been cancelled because of submission of his application at the wrong office. According to the authorities, since the petitioners permanent residence was in Daiohanga, he hao no option and had to submit his application in the Office of Range DIG, Darbhanga. 3. The controversy centers around Clause 11 of the advertisement which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1. That clause provides for the places where a candidate has to submit his application. The relevant part of Clause 11 which is in Hindi, roughly translated, would run thus: "(1) Candidates who are residents of Bihar can submit their applications either before the Range DIG of their permanent residential address or at their present residential address but not before the both." "(2) Candidates residing outside the State of Bihar shall submit their applications in the Office of Range DIG, Central Range, Patna." 4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that permanent address of the petitioner was at Darbhanga but since he was residing outside the State as indicated by him in his address of correspondence, the petitioner considered himself bound by the 2nd directive and, therefore, after disclosing correctly that he is permanent resident of Darbhanga the petitioner on account of present residence outside the State of Bihar submitted his application before the Range DIG, Patna. It was submitted that 2nd clause was vague and did not specify that persons residing outside the State of Bihar will cover both, who are permanently or temporarily residing outside the State of Bihar or shall cover only those who are permanent residents of a place outside the State of Bihar. It was submitted that 2nd clause was vague and did not specify that persons residing outside the State of Bihar will cover both, who are permanently or temporarily residing outside the State of Bihar or shall cover only those who are permanent residents of a place outside the State of Bihar. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned Advocate General countered the aforesaid submission. According to them once a candidate declared himself to be permanent resident of Bihar he had to be governed by the directive no. 1 indicated above and, therefore, directive no. 2 could be applicable only to those who are permanent residents of a place outside the Bihar. 6. On behalf of the State and the Commission some earlier judgments given by learned Single Judges relating to aforesaid Clause 11 were relied upon. They are annexed as Annexures-A, C and D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Commission. On going through those judgments it appears that petitioners in those cases had their permanent as well as temporary residence within the State of Bihar and, therefore, they had clearly flouted the option given to them that they can apply at only one of the two options given to them by filling applications before the concerned Range DIG of either their permanent address or their temporary address. Hence, the ratio of those cases, although relating to Clause 11 do not govern the present case. 7. An earlier order passed in this case by a learned Single Judge dated 31.1.2007 discloses that on behalf of Commission an order dated 8.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing CWJC No. 8614/2006 (Ranjan Kumar Jaiswal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) was cited. In that case the facts were similar and the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the respondents that the candidate had failed to follow Clause 11 of the advertisement in preferring his application before the Range DIG, Central Range, Patna and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge hearing this matter experienced difficulty in following the order passed in the case of Ranjan Kumar Jaiswal and, therefore, referred this matter to a Division Bench. 8. We had the privilege of going through the referral order. Learned Single Judge hearing this matter experienced difficulty in following the order passed in the case of Ranjan Kumar Jaiswal and, therefore, referred this matter to a Division Bench. 8. We had the privilege of going through the referral order. In that order there are some observations relating to the customary fondness of people of this country for their ancestral home and even after migrating from there for several generations they tend to describe their ancestral place as their permanent residence, though as a matter of fact it ceases to be so long ago. That observation is no doubt profound but this case has to be decided on interpretation of Clause 11 alone. 9. As noticed earlier the relevant provisions in Clause 11 are expected to govern the cases of those who are permanent residents of Bihar which shall be governed by directive no. 1 and those who are permanent residents of places outside the State of Bihar shall be governed by directive no. 2 but this interpretation given by the respondents is not fully reflected by wordings in Clause 2. The words actually used only indicate that the applicant is residing outside the State and not that he is a permanent resident of a place outside the State of Bihar and hence, it is found that choice of the words in Clause 11 is not very happy one and it leaves sufficient scope for a bona fide different interpretation as made by the petitioner. Even the application form, unfortunately, does not contain any clause demanding information regarding temporary or present address of the candidate nor has anything been provided in the application form to help the candidate out of difficulty created due to above noticed vagueness in Clause 11 of the advertisement. The application form in column 10 requires only an address for correspondence. 10. We have referred to the different column of the application form only because we wanted to satisfy ourselves whether there is any material in the application form to help to dispel the ambiguity in the wordings of Clause 11. The application form does not contain any such provision. 11. Thus, we find that a candidate like the petitioner had acted bona fide in sending his application to the Range DIG at Patna for the reason that he was residing at Bokaro, a place outside the State of Bihar. The application form does not contain any such provision. 11. Thus, we find that a candidate like the petitioner had acted bona fide in sending his application to the Range DIG at Patna for the reason that he was residing at Bokaro, a place outside the State of Bihar. He had not made any concealment and had disclosed that his permanent residence is in the district of Darbhanga within the State of Bihar. We have found such act of the petitioner bona fide because of ambiguity and vagueness in the provisions of Clause 11. The benefit of such ambiguity must go in favour of the petitioner, a young man aspiring for a future career. 12. In the facts of the case, we find that authorities were not justified in canceling the candidature of the petitioner on the grounds taken by them, hence the writ petition has to be allowed. 13. It is not in dispute that altogether 1510 vacancies were advertised initially and out of them, on completion of process of selection more than 1400 appointments appear to have already been made. Learned Advocate General submitted on behalf of Commission that on account of judicial interference through several writ petitions, the Commission had to re-evaluate the answer sheets and that created a situation in which the Commission has decided to recommend altogether 2147 candidates because the State of Bihar has agreed in principle to appoint candidates against the vacancies likely to arise in near future. 14. Although the petitioner has missed the written test on account of pendency of this writ petition since 25.9.2006, we find ourselves in full agreement with submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner must be given an opportunity to take part in a special written examination of similar standard so that he may also be considered for appointment on the basis of marks scored by him in the written examination. 15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed with a direction to the concerned respondents including the Commission to hold a special written examination which should be of the similar standard as the one already held and preferably by the same agency, within a period of two months from today. 15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed with a direction to the concerned respondents including the Commission to hold a special written examination which should be of the similar standard as the one already held and preferably by the same agency, within a period of two months from today. Since the State has not denied that petitioner qualified in the physical fitness test, it will communicate the result of physical, fitness test of the petitioner which has been withheld due to cancellation of his candidature, to the Commission within two weeks. We further direct the concerned authorities to consider petitioners candidature for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police without any delay and preferably alongwith other persons whose appointment is said to be pending after recommendation by the Commission. It is made clear that if petitioner scores more marks than persons appointed in the transaction then he shall not be denied appointment on any ground. It is also made clear that we have interfered with the action of the authorities in the peculiar facts of this case and this order shall not be treated as precedent for the selection process pursuant to the advertisement of 2004 because that has already made sufficient progress and We have been told that no similar writ petition is pending at the present.