- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner has applied for the post of police constable-driver in pursuance of the public advertisement and has been declared successful but he was not given appointment and the similarly situated other candidates have been appointed which tantamounts to arbitrariness and also violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for getting public employment with the State of Jharkhand. I have heard Learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of police constable-driver for two different districts and, as such, even though he has secured higher marks, he cannot be appointed. The petitioner has applied for police constable-driver for district Giridih and district Hazaribagh and, therefore, his candidature has been cancelled and he has not been selected, even though he has secured higher marks and, therefore, an order has been passed on 26th May, 2011, on the ground that the petitioner has applied for two districts and, therefore, he has been declared disqualified and unfit for the appointment.
(2.) Having heard Learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) The petitioner has applied for public employment for the post of police constable-driver, in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents. (ii) The petitioner has appeared in all necessary tests including the physical test etc. for the aforesaid post at district Giridih and though he has applied also for district Hazaribagh, the petitioner was never appeared for the tests taken at district Hazaribagh. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner has cleared all the tests for the post of police constable-driver. (iv) It further appears from the facts of the case that for district Giridih, the other candidates who have lesser marks have been appointed as a police constable-driver, discriminating the present petitioner. (v) It further appears that the petitioner has been declared disqualified for the appointment mainly for the reason that he has applied for two different districts. This is not a valid reason, in the eye of law, malrily for the reason that there is no rule, which prohibits a candidate from applying in two different districts for appointment to the post of constable. In absence of such rules, no condition could have been attached in the public advertisement and, therefore, inclusion of such condition in public advertisement itself is illegal. Respondents could not point out existence of such rule, regulation or executive instructions issued by the State Government; (vi) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner has applied for two districts. Merely by preferring application, no one is getting the post. One has to compete with similarly situated other candidates. The petitioner is ready and willing to compete with other candidates. The petitioner has secured much higher marks than the selected candidates for the post of police constable-driver for Giridih district. No prejudice is going to cause to the respondents even if the petitioner has applied for two different districts, especially when there is no rule, prohibiting such type of application by a candidate. The conditions cannot be imposed in the public advertisement ipse dixit otherwise, it tantamounts to the arbitrary condition. In the facts of the present case, the condition imposed in the public advertisement is not based upon any rule, regulation or notification. There is no statutory bar, for a candidate, under the law, from preferring applications, in more than one districts. In every district, they have to face the tests and compete with other similarly situated candidates. In absence of any statutory bar, imposition of such a condition in public advertisement is illegal. I see no reason why this petition should not be allowed and I also see no reason why this petitioner should not be appointed. Moreover, this candidate- petitioner has appeared in physical as well as other tests only for Giridih district and he has never appeared at Latehar Hazaribagh and, therefore, the reasons given in the order dated 26th May, 2011 are not the valid reasons in the eye of law for declaring the petitioner disqualified or unfit for appointment as a police constable-driver. I therefore quash and set aside the order passed dated 26th May, 2011, whereby, the present petitioner has been declared unfit for appointment. (vii) If any of the candidate is to be debarred or made disabled from getting public employment, for any reason, then there ought to be some statutory force behind such type of condition and such a bar or disability or restriction ought to have been mentioned in the rules, regulations or in executive instructions etc. In the facts of the present case, there are no rules, enacted by the respondents for appointment to the post of a police constable- driver. Every candidate has a right of equal opportunity in the public employment, as per Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India guarantees that there shall be equal opportunity for every person in a public employment. If anybody is ousted from applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or if any candidate's right, so guaranteed by Article. 16 of the Constitution of India, is to be taken away or is to be abridged, then it can only be done by rules or regulations. It cannot be by way of a condition in the advertisement. Thus, very valuable rights guaranteed by Article 14 as well as Article 16 have been taken away from the petitioner by inserting condition in the advertisement which has no backing or background of any rule or regulation nor any executive instruction has been pointed out in the counter affidavit, issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In absence of such provisions, the condition imposed in the public advertisement that a candidate shall be declared unfit or shall be disqualified for appointment to the post of constable, if he applies for more than one district, is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (viii) Even if a candidate has applied for two or more districts, appeared in examinations in both or more districts and selected also in these districts, it will not cause any prejudice to the State, because that candidate has to select one district for employment State cannot deprive a right to get public employment of a better candidate. If any candidate is selected in more than one districts, he will join services only in one district, whereas, for other districts, in case a selected candidate has not joined the post, waiting list will be made operative and candidate, in waiting list will be appointed. By adopting wrong methodology of selection in public employment (i.e. imposing arbitrary condition in advertisement that candidate who applies, for more than one districts will be disqualified), the State is deprived of a better candidate, in comparison with other. (ix) Assuming without admitting that there is executive instruction issued by the State (in fact tills has never been pointed out to this Court), then also it tantamounts to violation of right of equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Two classes have been created by the State viz. : (a) "those who have applied for one district"; and (b) "those who have applied for, more than one districts. The two classes of candidates created by imposition of restriction in public advertisement, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, if the object sought to be achieved is, to get the best, suitable and meritorious candidate. There is no valid reason for ousting another class of candidates. Administrative difficulty of State is not a reason in the eye of law for declaring another class of candidates, unfit or disqualified. State is an ideal employer. Goal of public advertisement, written as well as oral tests and longish selection process is to get best candidates. If administrative difficulty is to be given preference, then better candidate like petitioner will be ousted. State must endure administrative difficulty, for selection of best candidates and for protection of fundamental rights of candidates, guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Tests of valid classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, have been pronounced firstly, in The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and another, 1952 AIR(SC) 75 and this has been followed in several cases later on, are as under : (a) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things, that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (b) the differentia, must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Both these conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously. In the facts of the' present case, assuming that there is administrative "instruction, though it is never presented before this Court, and the aforesaid disqualification was inserted in advertisement then also there is no valid classification as second condition for valid classification is not fulfilled, as stated herein above, therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside, condition imposed in advertisement, that if any candidate applies for more than one districts will be disqualified. The petitioner deserves appointment on the post of constable. I therefore direct the respondent-State to consider the candidature of the present petitioner on the basis of the marks, obtained by him for district Giridih for appointment to the post of police constable-driver and he cannot be declared disqualified or unfit, merely because he has applied for two different districts. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of police constable-driver will be considered by the State. I therefore direct the Secretary, Home Department to consider the case of the present petitioner on the basis the marks for Giridih district for the post of police constable-driver, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.;