JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 7501 of 2018 1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that she is not pressing the present I.A. No. 7501 of 2018. 2. Accordingly, the present I.A. No. 7501 of 2018 is, hereby, dismissed as not pressed. I.A. No. 7556 of 2018 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that she is not pressing the I.A. No. 7556 of 2018. 4. Accordingly, the present I.A. No. 7556 of 2018 is, hereby, dismissed as not pressed. W.P. (S) No. 1162 of 2009 5. Heard counsels for the parties. 6. The present writ petition had been filed for direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioners for the post of constable. 7. As per pleading, the process of selection had been initiated by Advertisement No. 01 of 2003 and in pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners have participated in the selection process. 8. The dispute was regarding lowering the qualification. The State Government had lowered the qualification for the appointment from 10th pass to 7th pass. 9. The said lowering down of the qualification had been challenged before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 1458 of 2004 (Robin Tirkey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) which had been disposed of by Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.03.2005, wherein it had been held that the lowering down the criteria from 10th pass to 7th pass is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly it had been quashed. 10. Being aggrieved, the State had preferred S.L.P. which had been converted into Civil Appeal No. 6909 of 2005 and it had been disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2007, wherein the order passed by this Court in L.P.A had been reversed by sustaining the policy decision of the State, wherein the qualification had been lowered from 10th pass to 7th pass. 11. Thus, the terms of the advertisement had been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, holding that the State is competent to lower down the qualification. Thus, the eligibility criteria was 7th pass only. 12. In view of above position of law and especially stand of the State, it was incumbent upon the state to consider the candidature of all candidates, who were 7th pass. 13. Admittedly, all the petitioners are 7th pass and further, as per the pleading, petitioner 1 and 3 had got more marks than the last selected candidates. 14. 12. In view of above position of law and especially stand of the State, it was incumbent upon the state to consider the candidature of all candidates, who were 7th pass. 13. Admittedly, all the petitioners are 7th pass and further, as per the pleading, petitioner 1 and 3 had got more marks than the last selected candidates. 14. Thus, non-consideration of candidature of the petitioners are contrary to the terms of advertisement and the stand of the State which had been proved by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is nothing but arbitrary action on the part of the authorities. 15. Counsel for the Petitioners has brought to my notice, the order passed in I.A. No. 919 of 2008 filed and passed in W.P.(S) No. 3850 of 2007 and I.A. No. 918 of 2008 filed in 3838 of 2007, wherein vide order dated 22.04.2008, the process of selection had been kept open by this Court. 16. Be as it may be, in view of the facts of the present case and the stand of the state, it is incumbent upon the State to consider the candidature of all candidates who are 7th pass and had obtained the required marks in the selection process, upon which they can claim for appointment. 17. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition is, allowed, and remanded to the appropriate authority for taking a fresh decision regarding appointment of petitioners. 18. The petitioners are given liberty to file a detail representation before the concern authorities and the concern authorities are directed to take reasoned decision within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 19. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.