Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 30.09.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3302 of 2009, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, an advertisement was issued vide Advertisement No. 01/2004 inviting application for appointment on the post of constable, pursuant to which the appellant participated in the selection process by appearing in the written examination and though, he obtained 80 % marks in General Studies Paper, he was not selected as he was declared fail in the Regional Language Paper. In these facts, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 3302 of 2009.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised three-fold contentions namely;––

(i) There was no mandatory requirement under Clause 8 (kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 for qualifying in the Regional Language Test. It is only reflected in the said Clause that the persons having knowledge of the regional language would be given preference in appointment,

(ii) Circular dated 12.11.2001 governing the selection process in Advertisement No. 01/2004 does not indicate that there would be an examination in regional language and a candidate for being appointed on the post of constable must qualify the Regional Language Test, and

(iii) The Circular dated 12.11.2001 could not have been superseded with retrospective effect so as to bring in an additional condition of qualifying the Regional Language Test.

4. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.-V appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has submitted that in Clause 8(kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 as well as in para 7 of the Circular dated 12.11.2001, it is clearly mentioned that a candidate is required to pass the written examination. Since, the appellant failed in the Regional Language Test, he was not considered for appointment on the post of constable. Attributing delay and latches on the part of appellant, it is submitted that although the advertisement was published in the year, 2004 and in the mean-time as many as 3 merit lists were published, the appellant approached the Writ Court only in the year, 2009 after the 3rd merit list was published on 16.02.2009. The learned counsel has raised a serious objection as to maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that once the appellant participated in the selection process and failed, it was not open to him to challenge the selection process. He has also relied on decision rendered in “Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and Others” reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 and in “K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and Others”, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record of the case.

6. Clause 8 of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 is extracted below:––

(8) “Written Examination.

(a) Written examination shall be taken of candidates successful in physical test and measurement. Educational qualification for all candidates shall be minimum seventh passed or above. 100 marks for written examination of class seven level shall be taken in the test. It shall be necessary to pass in it (test). But this test shall be only qualifying in nature and marks obtained in it shall not be taken into account while preparing the merit list.

(b) Priority in the appointment shall be given to those candidates who are conversant with prevalent local/regional languages in the concerned district, against district level vacancies. Appointment shall be given to those candidates who are conversant with prevalent local languages in the state of Jharkhand, against state level vacancies.

It shall be compulsory to obtain minimum 30 (thirty ) percent marks to the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste and Tribe and minimum 40 (forty) percent marks to all other candidates for being qualify (being passed) in written examination.”

7. The above Clause 8 clearly provides that the candidates who