ORDER : I.A. No. 2604 of 2021 1. In view of the office note, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not intend to press the instant interlocutory application, since, the office has pointed out that the appeal has been filed within time. 2. Considering the same, the instant interlocutory application is dismissed as not pressed. L.P.A. No. 154 of 2021 3. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5033 of 2013 whereby and whereunder while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has refused to pass positive direction commanding upon the State to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Company Commander in terms of Advertisement No. 01/2008 but has given liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation for consideration of his case within a period of two months. 4. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under. 5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the respondent being Advertisement No. 01/2008 for appointment on the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, Sergeant and Company Commander (Home Guards). The writ petitioner finding himself to be eligible to apply for appointment on the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, Sergeant and Company Commander (Home Guards), applied. 6. Admit card was issued to the writ petitioner to appear in the physical test. The petitioner qualified for the minimum physical standard prescribed for Sub-Inspector of Police/Company Commander (Home Guards). After the petitioner was declared successful in the physical tests meant for the advertised posts, he has again been issued admit cards to appear in the written test. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written test. 7. The result of the written tests was published on 03.03.2012. The minimum cut off marks which candidate was required to obtain in the written test to qualify for interview were fixed by the respondents category wise which are as follows: S.I. Sergeant C.C. (Home Guards) General 160 136 123 OBC 156 143 155 SC 148 124 147 ST 144 121 140 8. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was issued admit card to appear in the interview. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was issued admit card to appear in the interview. The petitioner appeared in the interview. The petitioner did well in the interview and therefore he was assured to be selected finally for the post advertised in accordance with the marks obtained by them. 9. However, the merit list was published by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner was not there. 10. Aggrieved with the merit list published by the respondent State, the writ petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5033 of 2013. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation for consideration of his case within a period of 2 months from the date of order and further directing the respondents to dispose of such representation within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of such representation. 11. It appears from the factual aspect that in terms of Advertisement No. 01/2008, applications were invited for filling up of the post of Sergeant, Company Commander (Home Guards) and Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner, claiming himself to be the aspirant, has made application for consideration on either of the posts, i.e. Sergeant or Company Commander or Sub-Inspector of Police and to that effect option has been furnished in the application. The application reflects that the Option No. 1 is for the post of Sub-Inspector while the Option No. 2 is for the Sergeant and Option No. 3 is for Company Commander. 12. The writ petitioner has been allowed to participate in the process of selection under General Category candidate (Unreserved) and has secured 154 marks. He has been declared to be not qualified so far as the post of Sub-Inspector is concerned, since, cut-off marks fixed for Sub-Inspector was 160. 13. Likewise, he has also not been considered fit for appointment as Sergeant due to the reason that he has not been declared to be passed in the physical test. 14. So far as the post of Company Commander is concerned, although he has obtained 154 marks while the cut-off marks for the said post has been earmarked as 149 under his category. 15. 14. So far as the post of Company Commander is concerned, although he has obtained 154 marks while the cut-off marks for the said post has been earmarked as 149 under his category. 15. The writ petitioner has agitated his grievance that he has obtained 154 marks as per the details furnished under Right to Information Act that the minimum cut-off marks for the post of Company Commander has been fixed as 149 marks while the writ petitioner has obtained 129 marks in the written examination and 25 marks in the interview, coming together the total marks comes to 154. 16. Hence, the writ petitioner even though has obtained more marks than the cut-off marks of 149 but has not been selected for the post of Company Commander. 17. The writ petitioner, in the aforesaid premise, has come to this Court by filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5033 of 2013. 18. The State has appeared and filed counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the cut-off marks for the post of Company Commander is 159 and since he has obtained 154 marks as per details furnished under Right to Information Act, therefore, he has not been found to be meritorious candidates under the said category for the post of Company Commander and accordingly, his case was not considered for appointment to the post of Company Commander. 19. Learned Single Judge, however, has not given conclusive finding but keeping the aforesaid fact into consideration as also the process of appointment was completed way back in the year 2014-15 and hence, the writ petition was disposed of by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file a fresh representation for consideration of his case within two months from today before the respondent No. 3, if so advised as also with a further direction that if any representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of such representation. 20. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge although has not given a conclusive finding regarding the cut-off marks which has been fixed for appointment to the post of Company Commander which is 149. 20. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge although has not given a conclusive finding regarding the cut-off marks which has been fixed for appointment to the post of Company Commander which is 149. As per the details furnished under the Right to Information Act, since the writ petitioner has obtained 154 marks and the cut of marks shown to be 149 under the General Category, then in that circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have passed a positive direction by commanding the State respondent for the appointment of the writ petitioner. But, having not done so, rather, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file fresh representation for consideration of his case which cannot be said to be justified. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken a ground that the writ petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination, since, the candidates who have obtained lesser marks in comparison to that of the writ petitioner, are still in service. However, it has been submitted fairly that the aforesaid fact was not agitated before the learned Single Judge. 22. The submission has been made that since it is a case of violation of principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is being agitated in this intra-court appeal which is in furtherance of the writ proceeding and, as such, the same may be considered. 23. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the ground which has been taken regarding the cut-off date so far as the post of Company Commander is concerned, as per the appellant it is 149, is not correct, rather, the cut-off marks is 159. 24. The learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the aforesaid marks to be the cut-off marks for the post of Company Commander and admittedly the writ petitioner has obtained 154 marks, therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Company Commander has rightly not been considered. 25. However, the learned Single Judge, instead of dismissing the writ petition, has granted liberty to the writ petitioner to raise its claim before the concerned authority for consideration of his case. 26. 25. However, the learned Single Judge, instead of dismissing the writ petition, has granted liberty to the writ petitioner to raise its claim before the concerned authority for consideration of his case. 26. The further submission has been made, in response to the submission of violation of principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, by making submission that the candidates who have been appointed as Company Commander said to have obtained lesser marks in comparison to that of the writ petitioner are having the case on different footing to that of the writ petitioner since, the candidates who have been appointed even though having lesser marks in comparison to that of the writ petitioner, were continuing in service after issuance of appointment letter and when the issue of commission of unfairness/irregularity crept up, the matter ultimately went before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein their appointment has been saved on the ground that no fault lies with the persons concerned who have been appointed. 27. Therefore, it has been submitted that the consideration has been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court keeping the fact into consideration that they have already been appointed in service and not only that they have also undergone training for three years and rendered the substantial service. But, herein, the writ petitioner has never been inducted in service and, therefore, cannot be allowed to take the ground of parity with the other candidates who have been allowed to be continued by the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 28. The learned State counsel in the aforesaid premise has submitted that it is not a case of hostile discrimination, rather, it is a case said to be based upon principle of reasonable classification. Hence, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 30. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has agitated the ground so far as the minimum cut-off marks under the General Category is concerned. 29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 30. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has agitated the ground so far as the minimum cut-off marks under the General Category is concerned. Such submission is based upon a document said to have obtained under Right to Information Act, as appended at Page-69 of the paper book which has been issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel)-Incharge, Jharkhand Ranchi dated 25.09.2013. 31. It appears from the said document which contains the details of marks obtained by the writ petitioner, i.e. he has obtained 129 marks in the written examination and 25 marks in the interview. 32. The 3rd information was furnished that the last selected candidate under the General Category to the post of Company Commander has obtained 149 and hence the cut-off marks for the post of Company Commander is 149. 33. However, the State has taken the plea which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge that the last selected candidate for the post of Company Commander under the General Category has obtained 159 marks. The marks which has been obtained by the writ petitioner, i.e. 154 is not in dispute. 34. The only dispute is with regard to the cut-off marks for the post of Company Commander under the General Category. 35. The State has clarified the position that the cut-off marks of 149 as has been taken as a ground at the initial stage of selection process and when the irregularity was dealt with, the entire process was revised and in course thereof, the last selected candidate for the post of Company Commander has been assessed to have obtained 159 marks. 36. The plea has been taken that 149 marks as has been supplied under Right to Information Act is prior to revised selection process. Such stand has been taken in the counter affidavit. 37. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the said stand as has been stated in the counter affidavit based upon which the learned Single Judge has accepted 159 to be the marks obtained by the last selected candidate for the post of Company Commander. 38. Such stand has been taken in the counter affidavit. 37. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the said stand as has been stated in the counter affidavit based upon which the learned Single Judge has accepted 159 to be the marks obtained by the last selected candidate for the post of Company Commander. 38. The writ petitioner, admittedly, has obtained 154 marks and, as such, he has not been found fit for selection to the post of Company Commander. 39. So far as the post of Sub-Inspector is concerned, the last selected candidate has obtained 160 marks. 40. The post of Sergeant the last selected candidate has obtained 154 marks but the writ petitioner was not found physically fit for holding the post of Sergeant. 41. Therefore, the only claim of the writ petitioner is for the post of Company Commander. 42. The argument has been advanced that the candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the writ petitioner have been allowed to continue in service. 43. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. The learned counsel for the State has referred the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case where the entire selection process was the subject matter. 44. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while passing the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 429-430 of 2021 has saved appointment of the persons who have already been appointed ignoring the irregularity committed in the process of selection on the ground that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the successful candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that pretext has passed the order, for ready reference paragraph 10 of the said order is being referred herein: “10. The second issue relates to the claim of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions for appointment. There is no doubt that selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit. Appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The intervenors in the Writ Petitions admittedly have secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners. After cancellation of the appointments of the Writ Petitioners, 43 persons have been appointed from the revised select list. Those 43 persons have secured more marks than the intervenors. The intervenors in the Writ Petitions admittedly have secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners. After cancellation of the appointments of the Writ Petitioners, 43 persons have been appointed from the revised select list. Those 43 persons have secured more marks than the intervenors. By the appointment of 43 persons, the number of posts that were advertised i.e. 384 have been filled up. The intervenors have no right for appointment to posts beyond those advertised. The contention on behalf of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions is that they cannot be ignored when relief is granted to the Writ Petitioners who were less meritorious than them. We are unable to agree. Relief granted to Writ Petitioners is mainly on the ground that they have already been appointed and have served the State for some time and they cannot be punished for no fault of theirs. The intervenors are not similarly situated to them and they cannot seek the same relief. The other ground taken by the intervenors in the Writ Petitions before us is that relief was denied to them only on the basis of a wrong statement made on behalf of the State Government that there were no vacancies. No doubt, the intervenors have placed on record material to show that there was no shortage of vacancies for their appointment. One of the reasons given by the High Court for not granting relief to the intervenors is lack of vacancies. However, we are not inclined to direct appointment of the intervenors as selections in issue pertain to an advertisement issued in 2008. Subsequently, selections to posts of Sub-Inspectors have been held and a large number of persons were appointed. The number of posts advertised in 2008 is 384 and the intervenors have no right for appointment for posts beyond those advertised. They cannot claim any parity with the Writ Petitioners.” 45. Further, by taking into consideration the fact that all the candidates have been allowed to continue in service and they have also undergone training. 46. This Court before coming to answer the issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India needs to refer herein the background of the case which led the litigation to go before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 47. The process of selection in terms of the advertisement in question has been assailed on the ground of commission of irregularity. This Court before coming to answer the issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India needs to refer herein the background of the case which led the litigation to go before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 47. The process of selection in terms of the advertisement in question has been assailed on the ground of commission of irregularity. The candidates have been selected. The competent authority has declared the selection process to be illegal and accordingly cancelled it. But, before taking such decision, the candidates who have already been appointed, have been inducted with the training and they have been allowed to continue in service and they were continuing at that time. The matter, at that juncture, had travelled to the Hon'ble Apex Court, but in the meanwhile the appointment has already been made and the persons concerned since have undergone the required training, therefore, their appointments were saved. 48. The issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the second plank of argument. There is no dispute that in the matter of public employment Article 14 coupled with Article 16 of the Constitution of India is to be followed mandatorily. In case of any violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the entire selection process is to be declared vitiated in the eyes of law. 49. Herein, the State Government has taken such decision which led the State Government to re-initiate the process of selection from the beginning but, in the meanwhile, since the selected candidates were appointed and they had started discharging their duty and had also gone the mandatory training as required under the police manual. 50. The issue had crept up that what is the fault of such appointees if there is irregularities by the appointing authority. 51. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in that pretext, has saved their appointment. 52. However, with a direction to initiate the process of selection so that the irregularity/fairness which has already been crept up, be rectified and selection process be conducted in all fairness. 53. The writ petitioner has obtained 154 marks and, as such, has not been found to be successful since the last selected candidate has obtained 159 marks for the post of Company Commander. Therefore, the writ petitioner has not been appointed on the said post. 53. The writ petitioner has obtained 154 marks and, as such, has not been found to be successful since the last selected candidate has obtained 159 marks for the post of Company Commander. Therefore, the writ petitioner has not been appointed on the said post. The writ petitioner is trying to take parity with the cases of the appointed candidates who, in the first round of selection, have been appointed and their appointment has been saved. 54. The fact is not in dispute that the candidates with whom the appellant is claiming parity had already been appointed. But their appointment has been saved. 55. The admitted fact herein is that the appellant has not been appointed since irregularity has been surfaced in the matter of selection. 56. It is, thus, evident that the candidates who have been appointed in the process of selection prior to re-initiation of the said process, their appointment has been saved by the Hon'ble Apex Court but that occasion has not arisen so far as the case of the appellant is concerned. 57. If the plea of the writ petitioner will be accepted at this juncture, then the result would be that irregularity or illegality which has been committed in the initial stage of the selection process for which reason the earlier process of selection was rejected with a direction to re-initiate fresh process of selection, then the illegality will be allowed to be carried out. 58. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the appellant is claiming parity with the employees whose appointment has been saved by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 429-430 of 2021, hence, the same is not applicable, since, admittedly the appellant had not been appointed. As such, it is not a case where the principle of parity is to be made applicable. 59. As such, it is not a case where the principle of parity is to be made applicable. 59. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect along with the legal position and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that when the learned Single Judge has already observed that the cut-off marks for the post of Company Commander is 159 and the writ petitioner has obtained 154 marks that is the admission of the writ petitioner, then issue ought to have been decided but instead of doing so, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file fresh representation. 60. This Court, with due regard, is of the view that since the writ petition has been dismissed, there was no purpose to grant liberty to the appellant to approach to the authority by filing representation. 61. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Single Judge, instead of dismissing the writ petition, has granted liberty to file representation which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to be proper and justified. 62. Accordingly and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, part of the order by which liberty has been granted to the writ petitioner to approach to the authority is hereby quashed and set aside. 63. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 64. In the result, the writ petition also stands dismissed.