The court emphasized the reasonableness of the Commission's decision to confine the choice of candidates to one Range Board in order to avoid multiplicity of applications and upheld the Commission's right to cancel the candidature of candidates who had made applications at two places in violation of the conditions laid down in the advertisement.

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. Writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 15762 of 2007 dismissing the writ application has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that Bihar Staff Selection Commission issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Said advertisement was published in various newspapers including the daily newspaper "Hindustan" in its issue dated 21.09.2004. It is an admitted position that for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, before a candidate is allowed to appear in the written test, he had to undergo physical test and only after succeeding in the said test he appears in the written test. The physical test is held at Range level and there are twelve Range Boards, all over the State for the purpose. It is further also not in dispute that the writ petitioner- appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, applied for consideration of his case before the Deputy Inspector General of two different Range Boards, namely, Patna and Darbhanga. According to the, petitioner, although he had submitted applications to two different Range Boards, namely, Patna and Darbhanga but had appeared in the physical test only at Patna. This assertion of the petitioner has not been denied.

3. It is relevant here to state that one Pramod Kumar, whose permanent address of correspondence was Jehanabad, submitted his application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna which Range did not fall either within his place of permanent residence or temporary residence. His candidature was cancelled and he was not allowed to appear in the physical test. He filed writ application before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 6088 of 2006, inter alia, praying to permit him to appear in the physical test. This Court by order dated 11.6.2006 disallowed his prayer and dismissed the writ application inter alia observing as follows:

"It was clearly stated in the advertisement that they had to apply in the office of the Range DIG either of his permanent or present residential address and not anywhere else. The petitioner himself admits that in his application form he has given his present address as the same as permanent address. In that view of the matter he had no alternative except to apply in the office of the DIG, Magadh Range and not at any other place. In fact, he was wrongly allowed to appear at Patna on the earlier occasion as his application form was not validly submitted and since the earlier process has itself been cancelled as not conforming to the norms of the process of recruitment, he cannot be permitted to now appear at the Patna Centre."

4. After the aforesaid decision the Bihar Staff Selection Commission published advertisement in daily newspaper "Danik Jagran" in its issue dated 13.10.2007 informing that such of the candidates who had made applications before more than one Range Boards, their candidature have been cancelled. In the said advertisement candidates who have passed in the physical test were required to fulfill certain formalities. Petitioner aggrieved by the same filed the writ application before this Court, inter alia, contending that once the appellant was permitted to appear in the physical test, and he having undergone the same successfully from one place, he is entitled to appear in the written test for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned Single Judge of this Court relying on Clause 9 of the advertisement that defective application shall be rejected, dismissed the writ application, inter alia on the following ground:

"Clause 9 clearly stipulated that defective applications shall be rejected. The petitioners submitted defective applications. Such a candidate inadvertently called for the physical test cannot claim a