Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 226 (PAT)

Krishna Kant v. State of Bihar

2014-02-11

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
ORAL ORDER The only issue, which is required to be decided in the present writ applications, is whether all the petitioners, who were applicants of Advertisement No.1 of 2013 for appointment on the post of Jail Warden, can be given the benefit of the notification contained in Annexure- 4, dated 4.9.2013 or their selection and appointment would be required to be carried out on the basis of requirement indicated in Advertisement No.1as well as previous notification contained in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 5, which is also Annexure- 1 to the writ application. 2. Short facts are that these petitioners had applied, sat through the process of written examination and thereafter were subjected to medical examination. In both the procedure, the petitioners had succeeded. The problem has arisen because some of them either did not participate or participated but did not qualify the physical test of running 1600 metres in six minutes. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no requirement for them to be subjected to this physical test of running 1600 metres in six minutes because the petitioners belong to the Ex- Service Man category. There is a presumption with regard to their physical fitness and keeping the same in mind the Home Department issued a notification dated 4.9.2013 waiving such a condition. If it was so and since the petitioners had already qualified in the written as well as medical examination, they are otherwise eligible for appointment, which is not being offered to them. Therefore, the writ. 4. Stand of the respondents is that the previous exercise in terms of Advertisement No. 1 of 2013 was initiated on 18.2.2013 and the exercise was completed on 24.8.2013. Once the exercise was brought to an end on the basis of requirement of the Advertisement No.1 of 2013 and recommendation made, yet another Advertisement No.10 of 2013 has been issued on 12.10.2013. Advertisement No.10 of 2013 does not carry the requirement of physical test, which was there in Advertisement No.1 of 2013. The question for consideration is whether advantage of notification dated 4.9.2013 can accrue to the candidates of the previous advertisement taking into consideration the background under which such a policy came to be taken by the State exempting Ex-service Men from undergoing such rigorous of physical test. 5. The question for consideration is whether advantage of notification dated 4.9.2013 can accrue to the candidates of the previous advertisement taking into consideration the background under which such a policy came to be taken by the State exempting Ex-service Men from undergoing such rigorous of physical test. 5. Law is well settled that exercise for selection will have to be carried out on the basis of terms of earlier advertisement. The exercise anyway was over much earlier before the notification dated 4.9.2013 came into play. The notification dated 4.9.2013 has been taken into consideration in Advertisement No.10 of 2013, which has been issued on 12.10.2013. The terms and conditions of the two advertisements or the benefit of notification dated 4.9.2013 cannot be read into the previous Advertisement No.1 of 2013. Therefore, the stand of the learned senior counsel that Annexure- 4 dated 4.9.2013 is required to be read for the benefit of candidates, who have been selected otherwise, on the basis of Advertisement No.1 of 2013 even without fulfilling the requirement of participation or non- participation in the physical test of running will be of no avail to the petitioners. 6. Such an interpretation to the notification dated 4.9.2013 as well as the Advertisement No.10 of 2013 will have a serious fall out because even Advertisement No.10 of 2013 for which written examination have already been held will be a serious causality, if people are given waiver in terms of requirement of Advertisement No.10 of 2013, which was not available to the candidates of Advertisement No.1 of 2013. The Court, therefore, does not agree with the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners that the notification dated 4.9.2013 is for their benefit or that the subsequent Advertisement No.10 of 2013 is required to be stayed till this issue of their engagement is settled. 7. The Court comes to a considered opinion that these petitioners will not be entitled to the benefit of notification dated 4.9.2013. The requirements, which are in place or were in place at the time of issuance of Advertisement No.1 of 2013, will apply and shall be the guiding principle for such selection. No leeway is required to be made to the rigorous of physical test through a Writ Court in the circumstances indicated above. 8. The Writ applications, therefore, have no merit and are dismissed.