Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.20277 of 2012 (2) dt.07-01-2013 2 other advertisement issued by the same respondent and Bihar Government. (ii) To direct the respondent to give benefit to the petitioner in M.B.C. and declared his result in that category since the marks obtained by the petitioner i.e.

203.73 is sufficient which is apparent from the result of other M.B.C.” Mr. Buxi S.R.P.Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that when the petitioner had applied for the post in question, namely, Sub Inspector of Police in response to Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 in the year 2004 his caste was included in Backward Category but subsequently after selection procedure was completed on

12.6.2009 the caste of the petitioner was included in Most Backward Category and as such, the Aayog should have given him the benefit of change of category of the caste which would have enabled him to be appointed, inasmuch as for the Backward Category the cut-off is 222.53, whereas in the Most Backward Category it is only 185.12. In this regard he has also referred to certain other advertisement or decision of the Aayog, as contained in Annexures 5 series, wherein the benefit of change of caste if notified by the Government after issuance of the advertisement has been extended. In the considered opinion of this Court the law is well Patna High Court CWJC No.20277 of 2012 (2) dt.07-01-2013 3 settled that rigors which are in force on the date of issuance of the advertisement shall govern the selection process. The qualification or reservation is being part of this rule, if any subsequent relaxation or change in the rule is made it has to be made applicable to each and every candidate. In the year 2004 many persons like the petitioner may have applied or may not have applied treating themselves to be candidate of Backward Category. Their initial screening may not have been made as because of cut- off made in the preliminary screening because of their belonging to Backward Category. Today in the mid stream the Rules of Selection cannot be changed. This aspect of the matter stands settled in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.A.Calton v. Director of Education, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1143 and in the case of P.Mahendran & ors. v. State of Karnataka & ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 405. The reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on the notification of the Aayog, as contained in Annexure 3, and specifically its paragraph no.3 is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as what the Commission has mentioned there is that the candidates who had appeared in the written test and their results were declared in respect of the declared category could furnish their original caste certificate issued by the competent authority inasmuch as for Patna High Court CWJC No.20277 of 2012 (2) dt.07-01-2013 4 verification paragraph no.3 of Annexure 3 reads as follows:- ^^vr% mi;q ZDr foKkiu ls lacaf/kr ,sls lHkh mEehnokjks ftUgksaus fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksdj lacaf/kr vkj{k.k dksfV ds vuq’kaflr vafre vH;FkhZ ls vf/kd vad izkIr fd;k gS rFkk ewy vkosnu esa vkj{k.k dksfV dk nkok fd;k gS ijUrq vkosnu ds lkFk l{ke inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= layXu ugha fd;k gS] dks ,rn~ }kjk lwpuk nh tkrh gS fd os fnukad 12-10-2011 ls 04-11-2011 ds chp dk;kZy; fnol esa viuk vkosnu i= layXu fofgr izi= esa fuEufyf[kr vuqyXud ds lkFk vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djkuk lqfuf’pr djsa** (underlining for emphasis) The aforesaid provision will not mean that the Commission had allowed changed criteria to be followed. Infact all that the Commission in the extracted portion of Annexure-3 had permitted the candidates was to produce their caste certificate issued by the competent authority in support of their claimed reservation in the original application. The petitioner in his original application has claimed reservation in Backward category and therefore he now cannot by strength of Annexure-9 claim to produce his changed caste category of 'Schedule Caste'. As regards the plea of discrimination all that this Court can say that the Commission has illegally done so in case of other posts relating to different others advertisements inasmuch as it could not have allowed any change in the criteria even in respect Patna High Court CWJC No.20277 of 2012 (2) dt.07-01-2013 5 of reservation after issuance of advertisement and commencement of selection process. Article 14 of the Constitution of India confers an affirmative positive right and cannot be implemented in a negative manner. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. surendra/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)