ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. By the Court.--In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue letter of appointment on the post of Constable-Driver in the district of Latehar to the petitioner, who has been declared duly qualified and finally selected. 2. It has been stated that in response to the advertisement, the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Constable-Driver in Latehar district. He possesses all the requisite qualification for the said post and appeared in all the tests. He was declared qualified by obtaining requisite marks, but while the other candidates, who had qualified in the test, have been appointed, appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner till date. The petitioner made requests several times and also filed representations before the Chairman, Selection Board-cum-Superintendent of Police, Latehar, but till date, no order has been passed. 3. The respondents have opposed the petitioner's writ petition. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by them, it has been stated that the petitioner obtained qualifying marks, but he has not Jaeen appointed as he had contravened the conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the said post. However, in the counter-affidavit, no specific reason has been assigned as to which term of appointment was violated by the petitioner. 4. Learned J.C. to A.G., appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that though the petitioner has obtained qualifying marks for the said post, he has not been appointed as he has submitted double Application Form. 5. In reply to the said allegation, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted only one Application Form in Latehar district and he had also not appeared in any test in any other district. He further submitted that the respondents have themselves admitted in paragraph! 1 of the counter-affidavit that the other candidates who had filled up Form in different districts-have been appointed on obtaining qualifying marks as they are SC/ST. According to learned counsel, the respondents are discriminating the petitioner on the ground that other candidates are not of general category. Learned counsel submitted that the terms and conditions were one and the same for all categories, except the percentage of posts reserved for certain categories. According to learned counsel, the respondents are discriminating the petitioner on the ground that other candidates are not of general category. Learned counsel submitted that the terms and conditions were one and the same for all categories, except the percentage of posts reserved for certain categories. Denial of the petitioner's appointment on the ground that he had filled up double Application Form while giving appointment to other similarly situated persons is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have clearly admitted that the petitioner has obtained qualifying marks. They have further admitted that Jairam Paswan and Nagvanshi Oraon having same alleged defeci have been appointed. The reason assigned by them is that they are the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. On perusal of the advertisement, brought on record(Annexure-l). I do not find any different terms and conditions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and other category so far as submission of applications are concerned. Further, the respondents have not brought the another copy of the petitioner's application Form on record to show that he had submitted double application Form for the said post in Latehar district. There is no specific term for rejecting the application of the petitioner on submission of forms in other district. The facts admitted by the petitioner, thus, clearly go to establish that the respondents have discriminated the petitioner by not issuing appointment letter while appointing other similarly situated candidates, who had allegedly filled up double Forms. More so, when filling up double Form has not been established by them in this Court. Since there is no different term and condition in the manner of submitting applications by candidates of general category and by the candidates of reserved category, the respondents cannot adopt double standard and deny valuable right to the petitioner on the said arbitrary ground. The respondents being the public officer cannot adopt pick and choose policy and cannot deny appointment of the petitioner on the ground, which has not been applied in cases of the aforesaid similarly situated candidates. 7. Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range. The respondents being the public officer cannot adopt pick and choose policy and cannot deny appointment of the petitioner on the ground, which has not been applied in cases of the aforesaid similarly situated candidates. 7. Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range. Daltonganj-respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner's claim and issue appropriate order, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.