The right to be considered for appointment cannot be denied on whimsical or unstated reasons, and a selection can only be set aside on valid grounds.

I.A. No.9235 of 2014

This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 3 years and 55 days in preferring this appeal. The reason pleaded in the application is that on account of the fact that the appellant being unemployed, he did not have any financial support and by the time he could arrange the resources, there was delay.

2. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to the Government Advocate for the State.

3. It is no doubt true that the delay is enormous. The fact however remains that the appellant is an unemployed person who had to spend a lot in fighting three rounds of litigation in the context of his non-selection. We are inclined to condone the delay, having regard to the poor financial background of the appellant. Accordingly, we condone the delay. The interlocutory application is allowed.

L.P.A. No. 1631 of 2014

4. This appeal demonstrates an unfortunate saga of an unemployed person in making efforts to get him selected as a Constable.

5. Munger Unit of the Bihar State Police initiated steps for selection of Constables way back in 2004. Selection process picked up momentum only in the year 2006. It is stated that the appellant was selected and his name was included in the panel forwarded by the Selection Board, in its communication dated 08.09.2007 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger. However, the name of the petitioner was not cleared on the ground that his NCC certificate cannot be acted upon and he was not appointed.

6. The petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act to know the reasons for his non-selection. The Selection Board replied through letter dated 23.06.2008 stating that though the appellant was awarded 17 marks, including 5 marks for NCC ‘B’ and selected as a Constable, the same was not cleared by the DIG. In this background, the appellant filed CWJC No.5431 of 2008. The same was disposed of on 09.02.2009 directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision within six weeks. In compliance with the said direction of the learned Single Judge, the 5th respondent-DIG passed an order dated 01.04.2009 rejecting the claim of the appellant. Thereupon he filed CWJC No. 7650 of 2009. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, dismissed the same through the order dated 01.10.2010. Hence, this appeal.

7. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate for the State.

8. Though the advertisement was issued in 2004, the selection was made in 2007. In the advertisement itself, the respondents mentioned that the candidates holding NCC ‘B’ certificate would be awarded 5 marks. From the information furnished by the Selection Board, it is clear that the appellant was awarded 12 marks for his performance and other accomplishments and 5 marks for his NCC ‘B’ certificate. With 17 marks awarded to him, the appellant was selected in the first list itself which was prepared on 08.09.2007. The select list, prepared by the Selection Board was submitted with the 5th respondent for approval.

9. It appears that through communication dated 24.12.2007, the 5th respondent refused to accord the approval for selection of the appellant. Though two rounds of litigation have been fought in this regard, the respondents are not able to place the order dated 24.12.20107 before this Court, even by now.

10. On perusal of the order dated 23.06.2008 it becomes clear that the Selection Committee i.e. 6th respondent awarded 17 marks to the appellant, he was selected as Constable. The only reason mentioned for non-appointment is said to be the objection raised by the 5th respondent. In none of the counter affidavits filed in the writ petition, the reason for differing with the view expressed by the 6th respondent was mentioned.

11. Though a selection by itself d