CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 18.02.2014, passed in CWJC No. 25023 of 2013, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court has declined to quash orders, dated 21.11.2013, 20.11.2013 and 26.112013, issued by the Superintendents of Central Jail, Purnea, Ara and Nawada respectively, rejecting the candidature of the applicant-appellants for the posts of the Jail Warden. 3. The facts of the case may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) The appellants, who were writ petitioners before the learned single Judge, had, pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/13, dated 09.01.2013, applied for the posts of Jail Warden, under 25 per cent quota reserved for Home Guards. They were issued appointment letters, dated 02.11.2013, under the signature of the Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Administration, Bihar, Patna. On being so appointed, the appellants herein submitted their joining reports to the authorities of the Jail concerned, on 14.11.2013, 09.11.2013 and 15.11.2013, respectively; but soon thereafter, their joining have been cancelled by the concerned Jail Superintendents on the ground that they (appellants herein) had obtained Home Guard Experience/Training Certificate from the State of Jharkhand and not from the State of Bihar. 4. The appellants do not deny that they are trained Home Guards from Jharkhand. They submit that as per Clause 4(ii) of the Resolution No.5915, dated 03.06.2008, issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, 25 per cent quota is reserved for residents of Bihar irrespective of the fact whether they are trained Home Guards from the State of Bihar or from any other State. 5. In support of their above submission, the appellants refer to the said resolution, dated 03.06.2008, issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, with respect to the criteria laid down for appointment of Jail Warden. 6. 5. In support of their above submission, the appellants refer to the said resolution, dated 03.06.2008, issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, with respect to the criteria laid down for appointment of Jail Warden. 6. On he other hand, contention of the State is that, as per Government Resolution No. 5915, dated 03.06.2008, the quota of 25 per cent is reserved only for those applicants, who have got training of Home Guards from the State of Bihar, and, in the present case, though the applicants-appellants are residents of Bihar, they have not been trained by the Government of Bihar, but by the Government of Jharkhand and, hence, the present applicants-appellants do not qualify for consideration of appointment as Home Guards under 25 per cent quota of the seats reserved for such candidates. 7. Clause 4(ii) of Resolution, dated 03.06.2008, prescribes, according to the respondents, that 25 per cent of the posts of the Jail Warden shall be filled up from Home Guards, who are trained by the Government of Bihar. The respondents further contend that Resolution No.5915, dated 03.06.2008, cannot, in any manner, be said to convey that a resident of Bihar, even if trained, as a Home Guard outside the State of Bihar, would fall for consideration within the reserved quota of 25 per cent. 8. Since it is Clause 4(ii) of the Resolution No.5915, dated 03.06.2008, which is at the centre of controversy with respect to its meaning, we reproduce hereinbelow the relevant portion of the Resolution No.5915, dated 03.06.2008 : ^^d{kikyksa ds dqy inksa dk 25 izfr’kr fcgkj jkT; ds izf’kf{kr x`g j{kdksa ls ,oa 25 izfr’kr HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ls Hkjk tk;sxkA^^ 9. It would appear from a bare perusal of Clause 4 (ii) of the Resolution No. 5915, dated 03.06.2008, that 25 per cent of posts of Jail Warden is required to be filled up from Home Guards, who are trained in the State of Bihar. The said clause does not convey that 25 per cent of the posts of Jail Warden is reserved for residents of Bihar, who may have obtained their training either in Bihar or anywhere else. 10. The above aspect of the policy decision would stand further clarified from Clause 8 of the Advertisement, dated 09.01.2013, which read as follows :- ^^ek= os mEehnokj tks fcgkj ds LFkk;h fuoklh gSaa^^ 11. 10. The above aspect of the policy decision would stand further clarified from Clause 8 of the Advertisement, dated 09.01.2013, which read as follows :- ^^ek= os mEehnokj tks fcgkj ds LFkk;h fuoklh gSaa^^ 11. Considering the fact that Clause 4 (ii) of the Resolution No.5915, dated 03.06.2008, does not, in categorical terms, speak of reservation in favour of the residents of Bihar, it is Clause 8 of the Advertisement, dated 09.01.2013, which has been introduced, as a measure of condition of recruitment, the condition being that a candidate, in order to be eligible for the appointment to the post of Jail Warden, must be a resident of Bihar. On the other hand, so far as Clause 4 (ii) of the Resolution No.5915, dated 03.06.2008, is concerned, it speaks about reservation of 25 per cent posts for those, who have been trained in the State of Bihar. 12. Consequently, it would have been possible for a person, in terms of Clause 4 (ii) of the Resolution No. 5915, dated 03.06.2008, to have become eligible for appointment as Jail Warden even if he may not have been a resident of Bihar, but had been trained in the State of Bihar. In order to, therefore, exclude those, who may have been trained, in Bihar, as Home Guard, but may not be a resident of Bihar, it is Clause 8 of the Advertisement, dated 09.01.213, which specifically mentions that the candidate must be a resident of Bihar. Impliedly, therefore, Clause 8 of the Advertisement, dated 09.01.2013, excludes a non-resident of Bihar from the purview of selection even if he had been trained as Home Guard in the State of Bihar. 13. What logically follows from the above discussion is that under 25 per cent quota, one ought to have been trained, as a Home Guard, in the State of Bihar, in order to become eligible for appointment to the post of Jail Warden in terms of the Advertisement, dated 09.01.2013, aforementioned. 14. Thus, we are in agreement with the views of the learned single Judge that Clause 4(ii) of the Resolution, in question, conveys that only those Home Guards, who had been trained in the State of Bihar, were required to be considered under 25 per cent quota for filling up the posts of Jail Warden in the State of Bihar. 15. Thus, we are in agreement with the views of the learned single Judge that Clause 4(ii) of the Resolution, in question, conveys that only those Home Guards, who had been trained in the State of Bihar, were required to be considered under 25 per cent quota for filling up the posts of Jail Warden in the State of Bihar. 15. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. 16. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 17. No order as to costs.