ORDER : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders as contained in memo no. 9048 and memo no. 9092, both dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure-10 series to the writ petition) issued with respect to the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 respectively by the respondent no. 5 – the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, whereby they have been discharged from service of the post of constable. Further prayer has been made for quashing the orders as contained in memo no. 536 and memo no. 533, both dated 01.03.2019 (Anneuxre-11 series to the writ petition) issued both with respect to the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 respectively by the Deputy Inspector General, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi, whereby the memorial appeals filed by them have been dismissed. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reinstate them in service. 2. Reference may be made to order dated 16.01.2024 which reads as under: “Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, refers to paragraph no. 22 of the counter affidavit 08.04.2021 filed on behalf of the said respondent, which reads as under: 22. That it is stated that it was found that age of petitioner no. 2 was less than 28 years as on cut off date i.e. 01.08.2015 and she has to be considered under unreserved (Female) category but petitioner no. 2 was inadvertently considered under S.T. (Female) category only. She has also secured more marks than the last successful candidate under unreserved (Female) category and she is also within the maximum age limit of unreserved (female) category and as such this mistake was rectified and name of petitioner no. 2 was recommended by the commission under unreserved (female) category vide Letter No. 6504 dated 17.07.2020. 2. Considering the said statement made in the counter affidavit dated 08.04.2021, the writ petition so far as the same relates to the petitioner no. 2 has become infructuous. 3. The writ petition now only confines to the petitioner no. 1.” 3. Thus, the present writ petition is now confined to quashing of the order as contained in memo no. 9048 dated 12.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been discharged from service as well as the order as contained in memo no. 3. The writ petition now only confines to the petitioner no. 1.” 3. Thus, the present writ petition is now confined to quashing of the order as contained in memo no. 9048 dated 12.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been discharged from service as well as the order as contained in memo no. 536 dated 01.03.2019 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi, whereby the memorial appeal filed by the petitioner no. 1 has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that the respondent-JSSC had issued Advertisement No. 04/2015 for conducting Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination, 2015 in order to appoint constables in District Police Force and Jharkhand Armed Police (Vahini Nos. 2 to 10), wherein 50% of the vacancies in each district were reserved for Home Guards. The petitioner no. 1 applied for the said post against the vacancies advertised for Ranchi district and after going through the entire recruitment process, he came out successful. Thereafter, he was appointed in Anti-Terrorist Squad, Jharkhand, Ranchi with effect from 01.08.2017. Subsequently, he was issued show cause notice vide letter no. 2795 dated 08.06.2018 alleging that though he was aware of the fact that his appointment was made against the vacancies reserved for Home Guards and was not holding certificate of Home Guard, he failed to bring the said fact to the notice of the authorities and thus tried to obtain employment by suppressing the said fact. The petitioner no. 1 replied the said show cause notice stating that while submitting the application for the said post, he had mentioned “No” in the column of Home Guard and as such, he never claimed to have been trained as Home Guard. However, the respondent no. 5 discharged the petitioner no. 1 from the service of constable vide impugned memo no. 9048 dated 12.11.2018 alleging that since he was not a trained Home Guard, he was not eligible to be appointed on the post of constable under unreserved category of Home Guard quota. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 preferred memorial appeal against the order of ‘discharge from service’ before the respondent no. 3, however, the same was rejected vide memo no. 536 dated 01.03.2019. The petitioner no. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 preferred memorial appeal against the order of ‘discharge from service’ before the respondent no. 3, however, the same was rejected vide memo no. 536 dated 01.03.2019. The petitioner no. 1 neither mentioned nor claimed benefit against the vacancies reserved for Home Guards and as such, he cannot be made to suffer for the fault or mistake on the part of the respondent authorities. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner no. 1 was never recommended for appointment on the post of constable under Home Guard category, rather he was recommended and appointed as constable under unreserved male category in Ranchi District Police Force. The documents of the petitioner no. 1 were verified thrice and only after due verification of all of his documents, he was appointed on the said post in the Ranchi District Police Force and till his termination, he had completed one year of his service. Moreover, during his said service tenure, he successfully completed two ‘on duty training’ firstly, at jungle warfare School, Netarhat where he won the first prize in final shooting test and secondly, at Regional Hub at Kolkata (National Security Guards) where he participated in ‘Capacity Building Training’. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC submits that in compliance of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3239 of 2017 (Mithun Kumar and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others), an appellate/apex medical board was constituted by the State Government for conducting re-medical examination of those candidates who had secured higher marks in the merit list than the candidates recommended for appointment in all categories. After re-medical examination, the entire result was recast as well as documents of all the candidates who were within the zone of consideration including already appointed candidates, were re-examined. During the said process, the documents of petitioner no. 1 were also verified and it was found that in the ‘Candidate Summary Sheet’, he had mentioned ‘No’ in the column of ‘Home Guard’ and as such, he was only eligible to be considered under unreserved male category in open quota and, therefore, his recommendation for appointment as constable in Home Guard quota under unreserved category was wrong. Since the last successful candidate under unreserved male category of open quota in Ranchi district had got 179 marks whereas the petitioner no. Since the last successful candidate under unreserved male category of open quota in Ranchi district had got 179 marks whereas the petitioner no. 1 had got only 145 marks, his name was not included in the recast result. Thereafter, fine was also imposed by the JSSC on the agency entrusted to conduct the examination for providing wrong data to it. The JSSC has the power to rectify the mistake on its detection and as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she had secured 118 marks and the last selected candidate under Scheduled Tribe Female category in open quota had secured 123 marks, whereas the last selected candidate under unreserved female category in open quota had secured 100 marks. As such, the JSSC rectified its mistake by recommending the name of the petitioner no. 2 under unserved female category in open quota vide letter no. 6504 dated 17.07.2020. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2015, the petitioner no. 1 had applied under unreserved male category pertaining to open quota (i.e., other than Home Guard quota), however, he was recommended for appointment under unreserved male category of Home Guard quota. Subsequently, he was discharged from service on the ground that though he had filled up his application form under unreserved male category pertaining to open quota, he was recommended for appointment under unreserved male category of Home Guard quota. Later on, the claim for appointment of the petitioner no. 1 was considered against unreserved male category of open quota and it was found that since he got lesser marks than the last selected candidate under unreserved male category in open quota, his name was not recommended for appointment. 10. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 is that the said petitioner should not have been penalized for the lapses/mistake committed by the respondent authorities. He neither committed any mistake nor mis-represented himself in any manner, rather he had written ‘No’ in the application form itself under the column of Home Guard. 11. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others Vs. 11. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 , wherein it has been held as under: 28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand an Others, (2021) 5 SCC 424 , wherein it has been held as under: 11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the writ petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the writ petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the writ petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the writ petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 ], where this Court considered that the appellants therein were appointed due to an error committed by the respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the writ petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of contempt, the writ petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present. 13. Per contra, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC is that the JSSC has right to correct any mistake committed in course of appointment of a candidate. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC puts reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of T. Jayakumar Vs. A. Gopu and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 403 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light. 15. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner no. 1 had filled up the application form under unreserved male category of open quota and had not claimed that he was a Home Guard. The specific stand of the respondent-JSSC is that the name of the petitioner no. 1 was recommended under ‘unreserved Home Guard category’ and on detection of such mistake, his name was considered under unreserved male category in open quota whereafter it was found that he had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate of the said category and quota. Thus, he was not entitled to get employment on the post of constable. 1 was recommended under ‘unreserved Home Guard category’ and on detection of such mistake, his name was considered under unreserved male category in open quota whereafter it was found that he had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate of the said category and quota. Thus, he was not entitled to get employment on the post of constable. Though the petitioner no. 1 claims that he was not appointed under unreserved Home Guard category, rather he was appointed under unreserved male category in open quota, however, the said claim is bound to be brushed aside as he had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate under the unreserved male category in open quota. Had the petitioner been treated under the category of unreserved male candidate in open quota, the question of his recommendation by the JSSC for appointment on the post of constable under ‘unreserved Home Guard’ category would not have arisen. Thus, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC that the name of the petitioner no. 1 was mistakenly recommended under ‘unreserved Home Guard’ category. 16. Now, question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner no. 1 is entitled to be reinstated in service despite not being eligible to be appointed against the vacancies earmarked for ‘unreserved Home Guard category’? 17. In the case of Arbind Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 17 SCC 762 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 5. On behalf of Arbind Kumar, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in [Arun Kumar Rout v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 71 ], whereby this Court in the peculiar facts of that case directed for framing a scheme for absorption/regularisation of the appointees who were working as temporary or ad hoc for a long number of years. The judgment itself makes it clear that the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India with a specific observation that it shall not be treated as a precedent. Hence, we are not persuaded to follow that course of action in the present case. The judgment itself makes it clear that the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India with a specific observation that it shall not be treated as a precedent. Hence, we are not persuaded to follow that course of action in the present case. Although the appellants have pleaded that they are mere victims of irregular or illegal action by the police officials concerned who appointed them to the post of Constable without following the procedure prescribed under the Police Manual and hence deserve sympathy, but we are not persuaded to accept such submission. In our considered view, the beneficiaries cannot blame the appointing authority alone and claim that the illegal appointment should be continued in perpetuity. To accept such plea would amount to giving premium to dishonest and illegal acts in matters of public appointments. 18. It is well settled principle of law that if any appointment is made in total disregard to the constitutional scheme and the recruitment rules framed by the employer, the recruitment will be illegal, whereas in the cases of appointment where although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as well as the rules have been made, yet some provisions of the relevant rules have not been strictly adhered to, the appointment will be irregular. I am of the view that since the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 was itself non-est in the eye of law, he cannot claim to be reinstated in service on mere ground that he continued in service for about a year. Such illegal appointment cannot be allowed to perpetuate. 19. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case. In Anmol Kumar Tiwari (supra), the appointment of forty-two candidates on the post of Police Sub-Inspector was made on the basis of irregular selection list and subsequently they were terminated. The order of appointment of those forty-two candidates was passed by this Court making observation that they were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities and there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on their part and since they were appointed after completion of their training and had served for a considerable period of time, they should have been appointed against existing, anticipated or future vacancies. Moreover, in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) also, the appellants were dismissed on the basis of re-evaluation of the answer sheets and Their Lordships granted relief to them holding that the appellants had undergone training and had efficiently served the State for more than three years. As such, their termination would not only impinge upon their economic security as well as of their dependants but would also adversely affect their careers. Thus, in both these cases, the relief was given to the candidates looking to their peculiar facts. 20. In the case in hand, the petitioner no. 1 was wrongly appointed under ‘unreserved Home Guard category’ and as such, his appointment was void ab-initio. It is not the case of irregular appointment, rather of an illegal appointment which is not curable. Further, the petitioner no. 1 has been removed from service just after about one year of service as soon as the authorities came to know about the mistake committed by them. It is true that the petitioner no. 1 has not played any fraud or misrepresentation in getting appointment, however, on that ground alone, his case does not deserve sympathetic consideration as it is well settled principle of law that sympathy, which is not within the precincts of law, cannot be the basis to grant something which is otherwise impermissible. Appointment made on a post which is not in accordance with law will not confer any right upon the appointee to continue on the said post. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.