JUDGEMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this intra-court appeal the sustainability of the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9448 of 2009 is called in question. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential for adjudication of this appeal is that the appellant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, pursuant to the advertisement no. 704/2004. He was selected and was sent for training. While he was in the midst of training he received an order dated 11.4.2009 cancelling his appointment on the ground that the Bihar Staff Selection Commission had cancelled his candidature placing reliance on Clause 11 of the advertisement. 3. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and contended before the learned Single Judge that the order of cancellation was vulnerable in law inasmuch as the petitioner did not commit any breach of the requirements of Clause 11 of the advertisement. The learned Single Judge, as is manifest from the order, repelled the aforesaid submission and affirmed the order of cancellation which entailed in dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Questioning the defensibility of the order Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that Clause 11 deals with furnishing of permanent and temporary address and if the same is perused in conjunction with the format of application appended to the advertisement it is clear as crystal that there had been no concealment by the appellant. It is also urged by him that Clause 11 cannot be read singularly but it has to be read in conjunction with Clause 9, which prescribes the manner of application. In essence, submission of Mr. Singh is that there has been no suppression on the part of the appellant or for that matter violation of any of the postulates in the advertisement, and, therefore, the cancellation of appointment of appellant is wholly illegal. 5. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General appearing for the State being assisted by Mr. In essence, submission of Mr. Singh is that there has been no suppression on the part of the appellant or for that matter violation of any of the postulates in the advertisement, and, therefore, the cancellation of appointment of appellant is wholly illegal. 5. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General appearing for the State being assisted by Mr. S.S. Sundaram, contended that there has been clear violation of the stipulation in Clause 11 inasmuch as the appellant had applied for the post in Bhagalpur as well as in Munger, and, therefore, he was not entitled to be considered and hence the decision taken by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission cannot be found fault with. To bolster his submission he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Mohan Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2008(2) PLJR 526 . 6. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that decision rendered in Mohan Kumar (supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10020/2008 by an order dated 16.4.2008, wherein the Apex Court had passed the following order: "Taken on Board. Heard. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 7. To appreciate the submission raised at the Bar, we bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the order of the learned Single Judge. On a studied scrutiny of the same, it is quite clear that the appellant had applied at two places for the appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 8. Clause 9 of the advertisement, which deals with the process of making the application, on being translated into English, reads as follows: "9. Manner of filing of application. The information mentioned in Columns-1 to 10 of the prescribed proforma of the enclosed application form should be typed column-wise on a neat plain paper (65 G.S.M.) and those in Column Nos. 11 to 20 should be typed on the back portion of the same paper. The latest passport size photographs should be affixed on top of the application form (at both places). The attendance sheet in the prescribed proforma should be typed column-wise in the like manner on a separate sheet of paper wherein the photographs should be affixed. All such information should be filled neatly in English as per direction given in the proforma, in absence whereof the application will be straightway rejected. The attendance sheet in the prescribed proforma should be typed column-wise in the like manner on a separate sheet of paper wherein the photographs should be affixed. All such information should be filled neatly in English as per direction given in the proforma, in absence whereof the application will be straightway rejected. If any applicant is found to have furnished wrong information or is found to have concealed such information, his/her candidature shall be cancelled." 9. Clause 11 of the advertisement, vhich deals with the process of submistion of application, on being translated nto English, reads thus: "11. The application complete in all respect alongwith enclosures in a sealed envelope has to be submitted in the office of concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police. All the candidates must mention on the top of the envelope "appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (General or Urdu whichever is applicable)". The candidates, resident of State of Bihar will submit their application by hand or through special messenger in either of the office of Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police located as per their permanent or present residential address (not in both offices). The candidates residing outside the State of Bihar would submit their application in the office of Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. The candidates should not send their application to the office of Commission rather should submit their application in the office of concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police from where they would be given the receipt of application, also containing the roll number allotted to them. Such candidates who would send their application by post to the concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police would also be required to enclose an envelope of Rs. 5/- of the post office mentioning their address for correspondence alongwith the documents mentioned in Column-10 of the format of application so that the receipt of the application with roll number could be sent to them. Applications as far as possible should be submitted by hand/special messenger so that there would be no requirement of sending receipt of the application and roll number by post. Candidates sending application by post would do so at their risk/responsibility." 10. In the case of Mohan Kumar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after referring to Clauses 9 and 11 has held in paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows: 8. Candidates sending application by post would do so at their risk/responsibility." 10. In the case of Mohan Kumar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after referring to Clauses 9 and 11 has held in paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows: 8. In my opinion, the issue is not as to whether Clause 11 of the advertisement is directory or mandatory. It does not put any eligibility criteria but confines the right of a candidate to apply before the Deputy Inspector General of Police of Range based on the permanent or temporary residence of the candidate. In view of aforesaid Clause of the advertisement a candidate, resident of the State of Bihar, has been given choice either to apply before the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range where his permanent or temporary residence is located. The advertisement has clearly stated that a candidate can apply before one of the such Range-Boards and not more than one. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission has chosen to put this condition so that a candidate may not take chance at two Range-Boards or more. The Commission consciously has incorporated this Clause in the advertisement and confined the choice of the candidates in order to avoid Range- hunting, an -expression borrowed from the law Courts of bench hunting1. It was reasonable for the Commission to confine the choice to one Range Board, so as to avoid multiplicity of applications. Altogether approximately one lakh eighty thousand candidates have offered their candidature at different Range-Boards and had the Commission not confined the choice, all such candidates could have applied to all Range- Boards. It would have been difficult for the Range-Boards to handle such large number of applications. Bearing in mind this also commission had limited the choice of the candidates. The Commission emphatically confined the choice of filing the application before one Range-Board and not more than one Board which discretion the Commission possesses. 9. Clause 9 of the advertisement has clearly provided that if a candidate gives wrong information or conceals information, his candidature shall be cancelled. The fact that the petitioner had applied before two Range-Boards has not been disclosed in either of the application. 9. Clause 9 of the advertisement has clearly provided that if a candidate gives wrong information or conceals information, his candidature shall be cancelled. The fact that the petitioner had applied before two Range-Boards has not been disclosed in either of the application. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Commission possessed the right to cancel the candidature of such candidates who had made applications at two places in teeth of the condition laid down in Clause 11 of the advertisement. In my opinion, Clause 11 of the advertisement restricting submission of application before one Range-Board being later than Clause 9 providing for rejection of the candidature at an earlier place in the advertisement shall have no bearing at all." 11. Mr. Singh has made a Herculean effort to distinguish the said two clauses and submitted that the format of application appended to the advertisement was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge which according to the terms of advertisement had itself clearly stipulated that the permanent address as well as the temporary address for correspondence had to be given by the candidate. 12. On a perusal of the format, it is however seen that in column no. 5 of the format the candidate had to declare his permanent address. As far as Column No. 10 is concerned it only prescribed for giving "address for the correspondence". Thus, on a close analysis of the terms of the advertisement there cannot be any shadow of doubt that what is mandated in the application form is the disclosure of permanent address by the candidate and the second one for the purpose of correspondence was only meant for the purpose of communicating the decision. The said requirement in application cannot confer any right on the applicant to file application at two places before the two re- gional boards because there is a lot of difference in the expression "address for communication" used in Column No. 10 of the format of application and "present residential address" as used in Column No. 11 of the advertisement. The said requirement in application cannot confer any right on the applicant to file application at two places before the two re- gional boards because there is a lot of difference in the expression "address for communication" used in Column No. 10 of the format of application and "present residential address" as used in Column No. 11 of the advertisement. In fact, there was no scope for any confusion on account of a clear instruction in the advertisement for submission of application in the office of concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police within whose territorial jurisdiction of the candidate had his permanent home or was residing at present (i.e. the date of filing of the application). Thus, the plea of the appellant on this score cannot be accepted. 13. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Singh that the appellant had not suppressed anything and had mentioned in his both the applications about the same permanent and the temporary address and, therefore, Clause 11 would not be applicable. The aforementioned submissions of Mr. Singh, however, .cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, the advertisement had clearly postulated filing of one application by one candidate at one place only. This had a sanguine object inasmuch as the physical fitness test was to be conducted on Zonal (Regional) basis, headed by the respective Deputy Inspector General of Police. This aspect would be evidenced from reading of Clause 4 of the advertisement, which on being translated into English would read as follows: "The physical measurement and test would be conducted by the Board, headed by the concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police. The information with regard to the place, date and time of such physical measurement and test would be communicated to the candidates through newspaper. The result of such physical measurement and test would also be given to the candidates on the same dale on which they would be subjected to such physical measurement and test. Any candidate dissatisfied with such result of his physical measurement and test will be entitled to raise his complaint before the Board on that very date. The hearing of such complain of the candidate would be conducted on the same day in the presence of the Observer of the Commission and the decision on such complain shall also be intimated to the candidate." 14. The hearing of such complain of the candidate would be conducted on the same day in the presence of the Observer of the Commission and the decision on such complain shall also be intimated to the candidate." 14. Thus, from Clause 4 it becomes clear that there was no scope for any candidate to have filed two applications before two Regional Selection Boards headed by two different Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is this aspect of the matter which had been clarified in Clause 11 of the advertisement by making it absolutely clear to the candidates that they had to file their application to the concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police having jurisdiction of their permanent address or their permanent residential address and they were clearly forbidden from filing their application at both the places. This part of the selection norms was mandatory and violation thereof by a candidate had by itself entailed the consequences as clearly set out in Column No. 9 as also 19 of the prescribed pro-forma of the application form under the heading declaration. Column 19 reads as follows: "Declaration.I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. The above statements are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am unmarried/married having one wife only. I shall produce all the original certificates on demand, copies of which I have enclosed with the application form. In case any information found incorrect or false my candidature shall be liable to be cancelled and, if appointed in that case my services are liable to be terminated and I shall be responsible for any legal action. I shall abide by all terms and conditions set out by the commission with respect to advertisement and further instructions." 15. Thus on a closer scrutiny to the terms of advertisement as discussed above, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-writ petitioner had tried to dupe the authorities by filing two applications in two different Boards at Bhagalpur and Munger and his plea as asserted in the writ petition and also in memo of appeal that his second application before the Munger Board was on account of inadvertent error of his authorized person by itself exposes his fraudulent act. If the appellant-writ petitioner had disclosed his same permanent address in Column No. 5 of the prescribed proforma of the application form and Column 10, address for correspondence, both being of Bhagalpur there was no question of his submitting application at Munger in view of the clear requirement in Clause 11 of the advertisement laying down filing of application either in the office of the concerned Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police in which he had his permanent address or in the office or Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police, where his residential address was located. The expression, residential address cannot be equated with the address for correspondence and it is, therefore, clear that while applying in the Munger Board, the appellant-writ petitioner had submitted an application for taking chance in the jurisdiction of Munger Selection Board. The appellant- writ petitioner in fact has successfully avoided to produce copies of such Application before this Court filed by him at Bhagalpur and Munger and his statement in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the writ petition is to the following effect: "23. That in this regard it is stated that after submitting his first application form petitioner thought that he has not filled up his application form fully correctly, so, he thought that it would be better to filled up second application form from the same Range i.e. Bhagalpur Range and gave this application form to his friend to submit it before Bhagalpur Range, D.I.G. 24. That it is stated that petitioners friend submitted the second application form before the Munger Range, D.I.G. instead of Bhagalpur Range, D.I.G." The aforesaid would only go a long way to exposit that a lame explanation has been sought to be pyramided when he has been subjected to the impugned action of cancellation of his appointment. It is to be borne in mind that the appellant was seeking employment in a police force, requiring a very high degree of discipline, truthfulness intellect and honesty. Moreover, the minimum qualification for such post being that of graduation, if the appellant-writ petitioner was not capable of submitting one page of application in a correct manner requiring him to file another application to correct such error, that by itself would speak eloquently about his merit, ability and competence. 16 It has also been submitted by Mr. Moreover, the minimum qualification for such post being that of graduation, if the appellant-writ petitioner was not capable of submitting one page of application in a correct manner requiring him to file another application to correct such error, that by itself would speak eloquently about his merit, ability and competence. 16 It has also been submitted by Mr. Singh that when the appellant had already been appointed, it is obligatory on the part of the State to afford an opportunity of hearing to him. It is well settled in law that natural justice is not an unruly horse. When the facts are tell-tale and also so revealed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the order cannot pave the path of extinction for not following the principles of natural justice. 17. In our considered opinion, reading Clauses 9 and 11 in a conjoint manner and that too in the backdrop of the decision rendered in Mohan Kumar (supra), the submission which has been canvassed by Mr. Singh does not commend acceptation. 18. We are also informed that in quite a number of cases arising out of the same selection process relating to violation of Clause 11 of the advertisement a number of selected candidates having filed applications in two Regional Selection Boards their selection have been cancelled and in none of them this Court has interfered. Thus, at this stage, we would not like to deviate on this aspect and, therefore, we also are not inclined to entertain the plea of equity as advanced before us by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner. Any such deviation, in fact, would lead to reopening of large number of such cases in respect of a selection which has already been completed. 19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any error in order passed by the learned Single Judge, and, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs.