JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

PRAYER

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the result dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure-2) published in connection with Advertisement No. 09/2017 (Annexure-1) and as such prayed for quashing the same. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 for declaring results of Limited Examination held as per Advertisement No. 09/2017 only after determining the minimum qualifying marks of BC-1 and BC-2. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for determining the minimum qualifying marks of BC-1 and BC-2 categories in the Advertisement No. 09/2017. Petitioners have further prayed for restraining the Commission from inviting any application for the same post for the BC-1 and BC-2 categories for which examination has already been conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 09/2017 but the results have not yet been declared.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. According to the petitioners, an Advertisement No. 9/2017 was floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for conducting Limited Examination for appointment of 1544 numbers of Sub-inspectors from amongst Hawaldar/Assistant Sub-Inspector. Petitioners also appeared in the said examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the post of Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017 held on 26.11.2017. The selection process was scheduled in three tier system i.e. written examination followed by physical test and medical examination. The result was declared on 22.02.2018 but the result of BC-1 and BC-2 categories was not declared and the result of candidates belonging to aforesaid categories was held up by the Commission on the ground that the qualifying marks for the candidates of these categories was not mentioned in the said advertisement. Being aggrieved, petitioners represented before the authorities concerned but no heed was paid and as such they have been constrained to knock door of this Court.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal and Ms. Aditee Dungrawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that petitioners fulfill the essential qualification and criteria required and the result published by the Commission is violative of their statutory rights as the result of BC-1 and BC-2 candidates have not been declared so far and have been held up by the respondents till date. Learned counsel further argues that from Clause 13(ii) of the advertisement, it is clear that out of 1544 posts, though the Commission had put a separate category for the BC-1 (total 124 posts), BC-2 (total 93 posts), general (772 posts), female (124) posts but they have not mentioned the qualifying marks for the BC-1 and BC-2 category candidates. It was incumbent upon the candidates to obtain in paper-2 and 3 the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 45% for the unreserved category, 40% for the SC/ST category candidates but the minimum qualifying marks was not specified by the Commission for the candidates belonging to the BC-1 and BC-2 categories. The results were declared on 22.02.2018 but the results of BC-1 and BC-2 has been illegally held up by the respondents on the ground that the qualifying marks for the candidates of these categories were not mentioned/specified in the advertisement. The action of the respondents is in teeth of the orders and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has clearly been held in catena of decisions that treating two persons equally who are not similarly situated is an act of arbitrariness and in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This was for the first time that the State has conducted Limited Departmental Examination and as such there was no upper age limit prescribed for any candidates. Learned counsel further argues that admittedly no candidates have been recommended for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector under the BC-1 and BC-II catego