JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:-

(a) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash the paper bearing no. 803 containing the roll number of the petitioner in the column of ‘other defects’ (Aanya Truti) whereby his candidature for the post of constable from Giridih district is rejected. The said paper is wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because the same does not specify the reason as to what was the defect which was found that the candidatures of the petitioner was rejected and his name did not find included in the provisional list of the successful candidates;

(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable from Giridih district because he is a competent candidate and has passed all the physical and written examinations conducted by the respondents;

(c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire selection process and appointments as the same is violative of the High Court order reported in 2002 (3) JCR-188 and the notification no. 5776 dated 10.10.2002, whereby reservation in the matter of employment is required to be followed up in the following manner:-

Unreserved Category.

27% (On permanent basis)

23% (One ad hoc basis)

Reserved Category

Scheduled Caste 10%

Scheduled Tribes 21%

Other Backward Classes 14%

Total 50%

3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government published an advertisement bearing no. 01/2004 dated 13.01.2004 in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ inviting applications from the competent candidates to fill up the posts of constable in different districts of the State. This petitioner filled up the application from the district of Giridih and was allotted roll no. 7963. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared in written and physical examinations and he succeeded in all examinations. Subsequently, the State Government published a provisional list of 285 successful candidates on 18.02.2009, but the petitioner was surprised and shocked that his name did not appear in the said provisional list.

Subsequently, the respondents published one paper bearing no. 803 containing the roll numbers of candidates showing the reasons as to why their candidature was rejected. He further submits that this paper is vague, inasmuch as, the column of other defects does not specify the reason as to what was the defect which was found that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner wrote representation to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma and sent a copy of the same to the other superior officer.

Learned senior counsel further submits that this paper bearing no. 803 (Annexure-4) is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He contended that as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that some malpractice has been committed by the petitioner with respect to his date of birth, which he specifically denies and dispute, inasmuch as, in the chart there is no overwriting rather there is a cutting and there is initial, as such it cannot be said that petitioner has done any mischief of malpractice.

He further draws attention of this Court towards his certificates which transpires his date of birth and submits that the cutting was genuine and his date of birth was corrected. He contended that for the ends of justice, the respondent-State should have given notice before canceling the candidature of each and every petitioner.

He further relied upon specific averment made in the writ application at para 9 and submits that the petitioner was a perfect candidate to be appointed and as such, the impugned order should be quashed and set aside, wherein this petitioner’s candidature has been rejected.

4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the resp