ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. Office defects are tentatively ignored. 2. At the request of learned counsel for both the sides, this Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for its final disposal. 3. This appellant is an original petitioner, who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 6365 of 2014 mainly for the reason that he had applied for the post of Driver Constable in pursuance of public advertisement dated 17th February, 2010. This appellant is a General category candidate. This appellant had applied for District Palamau as well as for District Garhwa. He has secured 40 marks, whereas, lastly selected candidate in General category has secured only 38 marks for District Garhwa, but, as he had applied for two districts, he was not appointed because of a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2014 (3) JBCJ 419 (HC). 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner, who had applied for the post of Driver Constable in pursuance of public advertisement dated 17th February, 2010. 5. There was a condition imposed that no candidate can apply for two districts. This condition was accepted by this appellant, but, he had applied for two districts and was not selected and, thereafter, it was challenged. 6. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Sri Anil Kumar Mehta, reported in 2014 (4) JCR 429 : 2014 (3) JBCJ 419 (HC) in paragraph nos. 32, 33 and 34, which read as under: "32. While allowing the writ petitions, learned Single Judge observed that even if a candidate applied for two or more districts and appeared in examination in both or more districts and also selected in more than one district, it will not cause any prejudice to the State since the candidate has to select one district for employment and that the candidates will join service only in one district and in those districts where the selected candidates have not joined, waiting list can be made operative and the candidates who are in waiting list can be appointed. While observing that the candidates' selection in more than one district will not cause any prejudice to the State, the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the administrative difficulties. 33. While observing that the candidates' selection in more than one district will not cause any prejudice to the State, the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the administrative difficulties. 33. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Ajit Kumar has submitted that in order to avoid administrative inconvenience, the Government has introduced decentralisation i.e. district wise selection and permitting the candidates to apply for more than one district defeats the very purpose of decentralisation of the selection process. 34. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, if the candidates are allowed to submit application in more than one District, they are to appear in the test to be conducted in the different districts on different dates and if their names are listed in more than one district, they will have to fore go appointment in any one of the district/districts. This would defeat the very purpose of the decentralisation of the recruitment. If the selected candidates fore go appointment in any of the district, it would cause administrative inconvenience apart from causing dearth of recruits in such cadre. If the candidates are allowed to apply for more than one district by submitting more than one application, there would be multiplicity of applications and that would cause administrative difficulties in the Department and that was the reason there was condition restricting the candidates from applying for more than one district. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view the administrative difficulties caused by such applying for more than one district." (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, no error has been committed by the respondents in not declaring the result of this appellant because he had applied for District Palamau as well as for District Garhwa for the post of Driver Constable. 7. Hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6365 of 2014 vide order dated 19th July, 2016. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge especially in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. There being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.