JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. —The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari and mandamus quashing the selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Pharmacist. 2. Brief facts, as per the petitioner, giving rise to the present petition are that through advertisement notice dated 11.07.2013, respondent No. 3 accorded sanction to enroll Home Guard Volunteers against the vacant positions in various companies/Technical Platoons of the Battalions. As per the petitioner, he being fully eligible having Bachelor of Pharmacy Degree, applied for the same post. One of the conditions was that the candidate should be permanent resident of District Sirmaur and should be resident of 8 kilo meters from the office of the Company. The petitioner secured 28 marks, whereas respondent No. 4 secured 25 marks in the written test and in the personal interview they respectively secured 4.5 and 8 marks. Thus, the petitioner got 32.5 marks and respondent No. 4 got 33 marks. Consequently, respondent No. 4 was selected as Pharmacist. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the present petition on the ground that the selection of respondent No. 4 deserves to be quashed as the same is wrong, illegal and arbitrary, as he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist. As per the petitioner, the eligibility criteria was that the candidate should be resident of 8 kilo meters radius from the office of the company, however, respondent No. 4 is a resident of more than 80 kilo meters from the office of the company. As per the petitioner, he is resident of Dhoban Mohalla, Nahan, a place just 1500 meters from the office of the company. The petitioner has further contended that he is degree holder in Pharmacy, whereas respondent No. 4 is only diploma holder. Due to ulterior motive, only 4.5 marks were granted to the petitioner in the interview, whereas 8 marks were granted to respondent No. 4, who was not at all eligible. Respondent No. 4 has also suppressed material facts, hence his selection is liable to be quashed. Due to ulterior motive, only 4.5 marks were granted to the petitioner in the interview, whereas 8 marks were granted to respondent No. 4, who was not at all eligible. Respondent No. 4 has also suppressed material facts, hence his selection is liable to be quashed. Lastly, the petitioner prayed that the present petition may be allowed by quashing the selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Pharmacist in 4/9 Technical Platoon Company, which was made by respondent-Department vide Annexure P-3, as he was not eligible and respondents No. 1 to 3 may also be directed to appoint the petitioner as Pharmacist in the said company. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, by filing reply to the petition, resisted the claim of the petitioner. As per the replying respondents, the qualification for selection as Pharmacist was degree in Pharmacy, however, the basic qualification was diploma in pharmacy from any recognised institution. The replying respondents have further contended that there was a condition that the candidate should be resident of within a radius of 8 kilo meters from the office of the company, but the same was not applicable for selecting technical staff. The petitioner scored 28 marks and respondent No. 4 scored 25 marks in the written test, however, they respectively granted 4.5 and 8 marks in the interview. Thus, the aggregate of the petitioner was 32 (sic 32.5) marks, whereas respondent No. 4 got 33 marks. The marks, in the interview, were granted only on the basis of performance in the interview and there was no favouritism. The replying respondents refuted the allegations of wrong and illegal selection of respondent No. 4. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 hails from a nearby village, which is near to 4/7 Company, Kafota. The replying respondents admitted that the petitioner is degree holder and respondent No. 4 is diploma holder in Pharmacy, however, the selection committee took into consideration the basic qualification, i.e., diploma in Pharmacy. The replying respondents contended that the selection of respondent No. 4 was legal and no condition has been violated. Lastly, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 4. The replying respondents contended that the selection of respondent No. 4 was legal and no condition has been violated. Lastly, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 again filed a consolidated reply along with respondent No. 3 after the petitioner produced the documents obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein they contended that the basic qualification for appointment of Pharmacist is only certificate from any recognised institution and the condition that the candidate should be from within the radium of 8 kilo meters from the company office was inadvertently introduced in the advertisement. The replying respondents admitted the marks scored by both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in the written test and interview. As per the replying respondents, respondent No. 4 was selected as he was found more meritorious than the petitioner. Thus, selection of respondent No. 4 was not wrong, illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that a technical platoon consists of all the Technical Home Guards of all the companies of the Battalion. Respondent No. 4 belongs to a village, which is near to 4/7 Company Kafota. As per the replying respondents, in case a more suitable candidate is found, the condition of radius of 8 kilo meters is not applicable for the technical platoon candidate. It is further contended that the selection of respondent No. 4 was made strictly as per the criteria laid down therefor. Lastly, the replying respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Respondent No. 4 has also filed reply to the writ petition, wherein he has averred that he is permanent resident of District Sirmaur and thus fully eligible for being selected as Pharmacist. As per the replying respondent, the condition of 8 kilo meters (supra) is not strictly applicable and the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 is also akin to that of the replying respondent, as they have also averred in their reply that the condition is not strictly applicable in case of Technical Post. Respondent No. 4 further averred that he is more meritorious and has been rightly appointed. Lastly, he prayed that the present petition may be dismissed. 6. Respondent No. 4 further averred that he is more meritorious and has been rightly appointed. Lastly, he prayed that the present petition may be dismissed. 6. Thereafter, in compliance to the orders of Hon''ble High Court passed on 22.04.2014, a supplementary affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3, contents whereof are extracted hereunder for ready reference: "I, Baldev Singh S/O Late Sh. Hera Singh aged 53 years, Commandant Home Guards, 4th Battalion, Nahan, H.P., do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. That in the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Organization, in addition to Home Guard Companies, one Platoon of technical Home Guard volunteers has been sanctioned for every Battalion/District. The Headquarter of technical Platoon has been fixed/setup at the Battalion Headquarters. 2. That the Home Guard volunteers are enrolled/recruited within the radius of 8 k.m., in the Companies, due to mobilization during emergent situation. So far as technically qualified volunteers are concerned, such precedent was not being followed as technically qualified people like Drivers, Pharmacist, Steno and Mechanics etc., were not available within the radius of 8 k.m. therefore the condition of 8 k.m. radius for the selection of Pharmacist was inadvertently introduced in the advertisement which is contrary to the criteria laid down for the selection of Pharmacists and other technicians. 7. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also filed supplementary affidavit, wherein they have stated that: "I, Basher Singh (HPS) S/o late Sh. Ganga Ram, age 56 years, presently, serving as Commandant Home Guards, 4th Battalion Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, H.P., do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That his supplementary affidavit is in apropos to the affidavit dated 10th June, 2014 filed along with the reply to the CWP on behalf of the then commandant, 4th Battalion Sh. Madan Lal. 2. That in continuation of the said affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that no post of Pharmacist is lying vacant in 4/7 Company at Kafota, District Sirmour, H.P." 8. I have heard the learned counsel/Additional Advocate General for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 9. Madan Lal. 2. That in continuation of the said affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that no post of Pharmacist is lying vacant in 4/7 Company at Kafota, District Sirmour, H.P." 8. I have heard the learned counsel/Additional Advocate General for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 9. Now the only controversy which remains in the present case is whether the condition that a candidate should be a resident of within a radius of 8 kilo meters from the company was not a condition precedent and is a condition which was though reflected in the advertisement, but was not, in fact, a condition for recruitment to the post for which the petitioner applied. To resolve this issue, the factum with regard to the present lis is required to be gone into detail. 10. At the very outset, as per the document submitted by the respondents, the qualification for being appointed as Pharmacist is as under, and the same was also mentioned in the advertisement notice: "Trade-wise additional qualification: ..... 4. Pharmacist: A certificate of Pharmacy from a recognised institution is necessary. A written test of 40 marks upto matriculation standard shall be taken at Home Guard Training Centre at Vikram Castle Nahan of those candidates who qualify the ground test. Permanent resident: The candidate must be permanent resident of District Sirmaur and be within 8 kilo meters radius of the company office." Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident within 8 kilo meters from the company headquarters and respondent No. 4 is a resident of about 80 kilo meters from the company headquarters. 11. Thereafter, for the written test the result is as under: Select and Waiting list of candidates of 4/9 Technical Platoon Company Sr.No. Name Father's name Home address Date of birth Educational qualification Caste Police Station Length Chest 800 mtrs. Race Long jump 4 mtrs. High Jump 1.25 mtrs. Written test Personal interview Total Remarks 1 Vishal Panwar Shri Gopal Dass H.No. 151/1 Dhoban Mohalla, P.O. & Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur 20-10-1987 10+2/B. Pharmacy S.C. Nahan 5'-6-1/2" 32"-33" Pass Pass Pass 28 4.5 32.5 Pharmacist Waiting-1 2 Om Parkash Sh. Rambhaj Sharma Village Borar, P.O. Shilla, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur. 11=-4-1985 B.A./D Pharma General Paonta Sahib 5'-6" 32"- 33" Pass Pass Pass 27 5 32 Pharmacist Waiting-2 3 Babu Ram Shri Khajan Singh Village Shinkando, P.O. Korga, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur. Rambhaj Sharma Village Borar, P.O. Shilla, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur. 11=-4-1985 B.A./D Pharma General Paonta Sahib 5'-6" 32"- 33" Pass Pass Pass 27 5 32 Pharmacist Waiting-2 3 Babu Ram Shri Khajan Singh Village Shinkando, P.O. Korga, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur. 09/04/80 10+2/D Pharma General Paonta Sahib 5'-5" -1/2" 35"-37" Pass Pass Pass 25 8 33 Pharmacist Selected 4 Shailinder Kumar Shri Phula Singh Village & P.O. Narag, Tehsil Pachhad, Distt. Sirmaur. 17-05-1984 10+2 General Sarahan 5'-6-1/2" 34"-35" Pass Pass Pass 26 6 32 Steno typist Selected. Apparently, in the interview the petitioner was awarded 4.5 marks, whereas respondent No. 4 was awarded 8 marks. 12. Manifestly, later on no corrigendum was issued by respondents No. 1 to 3 with respect to 8 kilo meters'' condition in the advertisement that the same is not applicable. Now the selection of respondent No. 4, which was made by respondents No. 1 to 3, will clarify the things. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken a plea that respondent No. 4 was found more meritorious. In the written test, respondent No. 4 scored 25 marks and the petitioner scored 28 marks. This shows that in the written test, the petitioner scored more marks than respondent No. 4 and so he was more meritorious. 13. Now coming to the marks awarded in the personal interview. The petitioner was awarded 4.5 marks, whereas respondent No. 4 was awarded 8 marks in personal interview. Meaning thereby the person, whosoever interviewing the candidates found respondent No. 4 meritorious. However, only respondent No. 4 was awarded 8 marks, no one else was awarded 8 marks. The petitioner was awarded minimum marks in the interview and no other candidate was awarded such marks, when the petitioner was degree holder in Pharmacy and respondent No. 4 was not. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Pharmacist against the terms and conditions of the advertisement. At the same point of time, respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken a stand that the condition of 8 kilo meters is not applicable in case of technical staff. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Pharmacist against the terms and conditions of the advertisement. At the same point of time, respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken a stand that the condition of 8 kilo meters is not applicable in case of technical staff. Had it been so, respondents No. 1 to 3 should have placed on record any material in this regard and without placing any material on record and also without there being any corrigendum to condition No. 8, after the advertisement, respondents No. 1 to 3 cannot take a plea that the said condition was redundant. The action of respondents No. 1 to 3 is clear that they had awarded nearly double marks in the oral interview to respondent No. 4 than the petitioner. Had the petitioner been awarded even half mark more, he would have equaled respondent No. 4. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the averments of respondents No. 1 to 3 are after thought when they had taken an arbitrary decision, which is capricious and beyond the confines of legitimacy as well as totally arbitrary by appointing respondent No. 4 as a Pharmacist and to cover up their story they are now coming with a new case. Had condition with regard to residence of the candidates within the radius 8 kilo meters from the company been redundant, it should have either: (a) Not figured in the advertisement notice; (b) if by mistake it figured in the advertisement notice, then there should have been a corrigendum to that effect; and (c) the extract of information supplied to the petitioner with respect to the essential qualifications for the post of Driver, Armrer, Clerk and Pharmacist should not have contained the condition with respect to permanent residence of the candidate within a radius of 8 kilo meters from the company office. 14. In view of the above, it is clear that the affidavit filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, and the personal affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, Shri Baldev Singh, is contrary to the instructions of the Government and respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the stand just to cover up their mala fides and their action is not acceptable, being against the advertisement notice and the written instructions. 15. 15. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of respondents No. 1 to 3 is highly arbitrary, mala fide against the written instructions and are in order to favour respondent No. 4. Thus, the selection of respondent No. 4 is liable to be quashed and a direction is required to be issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Pharmacist. 16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner as Pharmacist with all consequential benefits. The appointment of respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside. However, as respondent No. 4 is working on the post of Pharmacist, it is open for respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider whether they want to engage him on any other post or not. 17. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in favour of the petitioner and against respondents No. 1 to 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.