Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument with respect to Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 only and in support of the writ application he submits that the impugned letter issued by the District Magistrate dated 15-02-2019 is completely arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory in nature. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur has got no authority under the law to cancel the aforesaid advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 inasmuch as the said advertisement was issued by the State Government in its Home Department and the Bihar Home Guards Rules, 1953 confers no such power upon the District Magistrate. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that from perusal of the impugned order of cancellation of the advertisement it would be evident that no reason / ground has been assigned in the impugned order for cancellation of the advertisement in question and the respondent authorities are trying to supplant the reasons by way of counter affidavits by taking a preposterous plea that due to pendency of selection process since 2011 certain developments have taken place and the Patna High Court CWJC No.10452 of 2019 dt.26-10-2021 concerned Rules have been amended changing the criteria of educational qualification, age and reservation. Accordingly, submission is that the respondents authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own laches and delay in completing the selection process and take a decision detrimental to the legitimate right of the petitioner by depriving him to be selected / nominated as Home Guard taking the plea of subsequent change in the eligibility criteria. He further vehemently submits that pursuant to the same advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 in various other districts the selection / nomination process has recently been started and completed in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 whereas, the District Magistrate, Bhojpur has cancelled the Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the materials available on record. The only issue which requires consideration in the present writ application is that as to whether the decision of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur to cancel the advertisement in question is based upon valid or cogent reason or not. From perusal of the pleadings and other available materials on record, it appears that before the Redressal Officer stand was taken by the respondent authorities that a roster has been sent to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur for approval and enrollment / nomination process would be completed shortly and taking into account the said stand of the respondent authorities the Redressal Officer, Bhojpur passed the final order on 05.01.2019 directing the concerned public authorities to take necessary steps in this regard. It further appears that instead of completing the selection process as per the Advertisement No. 02 / Patna High Court CWJC No.10452 of 2019 dt.26-10-2021 2011, the respondent authorities vide letter dated 15-02-2019 cancelled the advertisement in question and decided to publish fresh advertisement for selection / nomination of Home Guards. Though no reason for cancellation of the Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 has been assigned in the impugned letter, however, the respondent authorities tried to justify the decision of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur on the ground that during the pendency of the selection process there was change in the eligibility criteria in respect to educational qualification, age and reservation. The respondent-State failed to controvert the specific averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that pursuant to the same advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 the selection / nomination process has recently been started and completed in various other districts and the decision to cancel the advertisement by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur is completely discriminatory and arbitrary.

11. In view of uncontroverted fact that the selection process for nomination of Home Guards in various other districts pursuant to the same Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 has started and completed recently between the year 2017 to 2021 and the selection process in the district of Aurangabad has recently been started on the basis of the same old eligibility criteria and as such Patna High Court CWJC No.10452 of 2019 dt.26-10-2021 the decision of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur to cancel the Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 is not tenable in law as well as on facts. The respondent authorities are not permitted to take advantage of their own fault in completing the selection process within a reasonable time period and are also not permitted to take a plea of change in the eligibility criteria due to subsequent amendment as a ground for cancellation of the Advertisement No. 2 / 2011.

12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned letter dated 15-02-2019 contained in letter No. 383 at Annexure- P/8 to the I.A. No. 1 of 2019 by which decision has been taken to cancel the Advertisement No. 02 / 2011 is not sustainable in law and fact inasmuch as the subsequent amendment in the Rules during the pendency of the selection process cannot be taken as a ground for cancellation of the advertisement. I also find the impugned decision as discriminatory in nature on the ground that similarly situated candidates of various other districts have recently participated in the selection process started and completed by the respondent authorities.