Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent 1st set and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3.

2. The present L.P.A. has been filed by the above named appellant challenging the order dated 20.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 14087 of 2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing that if the petitioner/respondent 1st set appeared in the examination and qualified for the post, the petitioner/respondent 1st set should be given appointment on the post of driver constable and placed in at the right place.

3. The facts relevant for determination of the case may be gleaned from the records of the case are that the Central Selection Board of Constable- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) is a recruiting body of constables and is involved in recruitment of constable including driver constable. The Board pursuant to the vacancy for appointment of 1577 Driver Constable in the District Police Force, the BMP Battalion and other units sent to the Board from the police head quarter. The Board initiated recruitment process by publishing an Advertisement No. 01/2016 dated 25.08.2016 for filling up the vacancy by inviting application to be submitted by the aspiring applicants, who have passed 10+2 (Intermediate) or any equivalent examination conducted by any Board/Council recognized by the State/Central Govt. as on or before 01.08.2016. Only those male and female candidates would be eligible for the said post who have minimum one year driving license before the date of the Advertisement. The other criteria being the age limit as on 01.08.2016 categorically with respect to General Category Male, OBC/EBC Male/Female, Women Unreserved, SC/ST Male/Female. Further five years age relaxation in maximum age limit to the engaged driver on the contract in Bihar Police. The Advertisement further contains the process for direct recruitment for Driver Constable by calling the eligible candidates for Physical Evaluation Test (PET) on the basis of applications received. The successful candidates in Physical Evaluation Test (PET) were required to be called for Vehicle Driving Efficiency Test and merit list is required to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in Vehicle Driving Efficiency Test. The Board is then required to send a recommendation to the District Superintendent of Police/Commandant of Military Police and other units. The Advertisement also gives other criteria relating to height, chest, physical abilities etc. The merit list is prepared on the basis of Vehicle Driving Efficiency Test in which the candidate has to pass through five tests, for which maximum 50 marks has been allotted. The candidates are given marks on the basis of their performance in the test. The condition relating to date of birth has also been specifically given in the Advertisement and any discrepancy or mismatch found from the original certificate of 10th Board Examination would automatically amount to rejection of the candidature.

4. The petitioner/respondent 1st set pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement being Gen-M-HG category candidate submitted his application for the post of Driver Constable in which he has mentioned his date of birth as 3.06.1987 as mentioned in his original certificate of 10th Board Examination. The petitioner/respondent 1st set has given his declaration in Clause-22 of the application form and the Advertisement declaring that if anything found wrong or incorrect, his/her candidature would be rejected and legal action can be initiated.

5. The case of the Board is that during verification and scrutiny of documents, it was found that the date of birth as mentioned in the original application form by the petitioner/respondent 1st set differ from Driving License issued by District Transport Officer, Simdega (Jharkhand). The petitioner/respondent 1st set in his application form has mentioned his date of bir