Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Tuti vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(S) No. 4266 of 2013
—-
Deepak Kumar Tuti, son of James Munda, resident of Village Buruhundru,
P.O. Goil Kera, P.S. Goil Kera, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
…… …. … Petitioner(s)
— Versus —
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, P.O. Kutchery,
P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3.Controller of Examination Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi,
P.O. Kutchery, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
…… …. …Opposite Parties
—-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
—-
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent-JPSC :- Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Awanish Shekhar, A.C. to AAG-I
—-
7/17.01.2025 The instant matter has been assigned to this Bench and that is how the
instant case has been listed before this Bench.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-J.P.S.C.
3. The prayer in this petition has been made for direction upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post
of Geologist under the Mines and Geology Department of the State of
Jharkhand in the reserved category of scheduled tribe.
4. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that there was an advertisement issued by the respondent
Jharkhand Public Service Commission [JPSC] as Adv. No.28 of 2012 for the post
of Geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology, Jharkhand. The petitioner
applied for the post and submitted all the required certificates along with the
form. He submits that the petitioner belongs to the reserved category and he
–1– [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]
has produced the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer with an
undertaking as and when the certificate of caste issued by the S.D.O will be
deposited later on. He submits that the S.D.O has issued the caste certificate on
08.06.2012 and in spite of that the petitioner has not been appointed and the
petitioner has been considered in the general category as the caste certificate
by the S.D.O was received belatedly.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent J.P.S.C submits that the last date of
receiving of all the documents was 30.04.2012 whereas the caste certificate
issued by the S.D.O was issued on 08.06.2012, i.e., after the last date of
submitting the documents. He submits that in view of that the case of the
petitioner was considered under the general category and he was not treated in
the reserved category. He further submits that the process of appointment has
already been completed in the year 2013 itself and according to him, now this
petition has become infructuous.
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not submitted the caste
certificate issued by the S.D.O in terms of the advertisement and the last date
of submission of the documents was 30.04.2012.
7. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the “Divya V. Union
of India and others” (2024) 1 SCC 448 and paragraph nos. 1, 11, 14, 16,
22, 27, 35, 36, 37, 40, 51, 61, 62, 63, 64 of the judgment in the case is quoted
hereinbelow:
“1. These writ petitions raise questions involving the
interpretation of the Office Memoranda (“OM”) dated 19-1-2019
and 31-1-2019 prescribing the eligibility for the Economically
Weaker Section (“EWS”) category. Additionally, they also involve
the interpretation of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022
(“CSE-2022 Rules”), particularly, Rules 13, 27 and 28 thereof. The
petitioners, for diverse reasons, were denied the benefit of the
EWS category by the Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) for
the Civil Services Examination of the year 2022. Was UPSC justified
in denying them the benefit of reservation under the EWS category,
is the main question involved.
11. The applicable date for possession in this case is 22-2-
–2– [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]
2022. This is because after the promulgation of the Rules, the third
respondent Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) issued the
examination notice on 2- 2-2022 and the last date for submission
of the application was 22-2- 2022 and the time of deadline was
6.00 p.m. on that day.
14. What is clear from the above is, before the closing date
of application, the candidate has to be in possession of the
requisite 5 certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 and before the
Main Examination, the candidate is expected to upload the
certificate.
16. For these reasons, the petitioner states that she was
unable to obtain the certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 before
22-2-2022. It is also admitted by her that, by 13-12-2022, she was
able to obtain the EWS certificate for Financial Year 2021-2022 but
was not able to obtain the EWS certificate for 2020-2021 till 1-6-
2023.
22. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition since she claims that she had secured All India Rank
(“AIR”) 105 and if she were to be considered in the EWS category,
her cut-off would qualify her, for admission to the CSE-2022 in the
IAS cadre. In the writ petition, she has prayed for the following
reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
for quashing email dated 30-5-2023 issued by Respondent l; (ii)
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to retain the petitioner in the
economically weaker section (“EWS”) category and accept the EWS
certificate submitted by the petitioner for Financial Year 2020-
2021, for the purpose of recruitment pursuant to Civil Services
Examination 2022; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring
Rule 13, Rule 27(3) and Rule 28 of the Civil Services Examination
Rules, 2022, to the extent that it prescribes that candidates must
be in possession of the EWS certificate as on the closing date of the
application for Preliminary Examination, to be ultra vires Article 14
of the Constitution of India as being arbitrary;”
27. It is averred that the petitioner was not the only
candidate whose category was changed to general, due to non-
submission of I&AC based on the income of FY 2020-2021 issued
beyond the closing date i.e. 22-2- 2022. It is averred that, as many
as 36 candidates, who had applied under the EWS, were not
treated as EWS as they failed to upload the valid I&AC with their
DAF-I. According to UPSC, out of the 36 candidates, the category of
22 candidates was changed from EWS to general as they had
qualified the CSE-2022 on general standards and with regard to 14
candidates, who failed to qualify, their candidature was cancelled.
35. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that once their categorisation as an EWS was not in
dispute, mere inability to have the certificate as of 22-2-2022
should not operate to their prejudice. According to them, the
delayed submission did not affect the category-wise allocation
–3– [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]
process at any stage and that there was no rationale for insisting
on the certificate to be dated before the cut-off i.e. 22-2-2022,
namely, the last day for submission of the application for
Preliminary Examination. They relied on Ram Kumar Gijroya v.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [Ram Kumar Gijroya v.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 :
(2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] , Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020
SCC OnLine SC 1472] (two Judges) and Karn Singh Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2
SCC 588 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341] (three Judges), Charles K.
Skaria v. C. Mathew [Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC
752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] , Dolly 6 Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE [Dolly
Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 :
5 SCEC 475] , Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC [Dheerender Singh
Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 318] , Alok
Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265] and Deepak Yadav v.
UPSC [Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC
(L&S) 809] . Additionally, and quite feebly, a contention was also
raised that the CSE Rules, 2022 have no statutory flavour and are
not enforceable in law.
36. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the Union of India
and Mr Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for Respondent 3 UPSC,
thoroughly and painstakingly countered the submissions of the
petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the present was a
case where there was a clear prescription in the form of rules. The
learned counsel relied on OM dated 19-1-2019, 31-1-2019 and
Rules 13, 27 and 28 of the CSE-2022 Rules to contend that
eligibility is acquired as an EWS candidate only after the candidate
meets the criteria issued by the Central Government and is in
possession of the requisite I&AC based on the income for FY 2020-
2021; that under Rule 28, the candidates should be in possession of
all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of
their claim by the closing date of the application viz. 22-2-2022;
that for the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit
DAF-I along with scanned documents in support within prescribed
time for the same; any delay in submission of the DAF-I or
documents in support beyond the prescribed date was not allowed
and would lead to cancellation of the candidature.
37. The learned counsel distinguished Charles K. Skaria
[Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S)
305] , Dolly Chhanda [Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC
779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 : 5 SCEC 475] and Dheerender Singh
Paliwal [Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 :
(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 318] by stating that in those cases the
candidates, who were given relief, possessed the eligibility before
the cut-off date and the issue was only about submission of proof.
The learned counsel relied on Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander
–4– [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]
Shekhar [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC
18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] and UPSC v. Gaurav Singh [UPSC v.
Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116] to
reinforce their submissions and distinguished Deepak Yadav
[Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S)
809] as having been confined to its special facts for the
extraordinary Covid year. The learned counsel submitted that Ram
Kumar Gijroya [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] was
also clearly distinguishable and that the petitioners could not
derive any benefit from it.
40. Countering the submission of the petitioners in the
other two petitions, the learned counsel states that the case was
squarely covered by Gaurav Singh [UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2
SCC 605 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116] and if each candidate is
allowed to come with clarifications/corrigenda, there will be no
end to the selection process and the sanctity of the rule would
completely stand negated. The learned counsel contended that any
selective relaxation would cause enormous injustice to the non-
applicants, who in compliance with the rule would not have
applied for the reason that they did not possess the 7 eligibility
certificate on the last date for submission. To reinforce the
submission, reliance was placed on Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok
Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 913] and Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
346] wherein it was held that deviation from the Rules allows entry
to ineligible persons and deprives, among others, who could have
competed for the post. So, contending they prayed for dismissal of
the writ petitions.
51. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules
which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be
possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any
other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for
determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it
would be the last date for submission of the application. (See
Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [Rekha Chaturvedi v.
University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
951] ; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [Bhupinderpal Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 639] ; Ashok
Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of
India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 19] .)
61. The strong reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gijroya case
[Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
(2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] also does not impress
us. Not only was there no rule, like we have in the present case, it
was only while declaring the result, the requirement of submitting
the OBC certificate before the cutoff date was introduced by the
Selection Authority there. Moreover, unlike the present, there was
–5– [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]
no contention or issue raised in that case that eligibility enures or
crystallises only on the issuance of the certificate and on
possession of the certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date.
62. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya case [Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC
754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] is also directly in conflict with the
judgment of three Hon’ble Judges in Ashok Kumar Sharma v.
Chander Shekhar [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997)
4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] wherein in para 6, it was held as
under : (Chander Shekhar case [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander
Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] , SCC pp. 21-22) “6.
… So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1-9-1995 is
concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment
(rendered by Dr T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is
unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the
applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be
judged with reference to that date and that date alone is a well-
established one. A person who acquires the prescribed
qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be
considered at all. An advertisement or notification
issued/published calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by
such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason
behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who
obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the
date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview,
other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just
because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that
they had 8 not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the
prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential
basis.”
63. Apart from all of this, the correctness of Ram Kumar
Gijroya case [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] was
referred to a threeJudge Bench in Karn Singh Yadav [Karn Singh
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 1472] . A perusal of para six of the referral order clearly shows
that the Bench was echoing the ratio of the three-Judge Bench in
Ashok Kumar Sharma case [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander
Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] though there is no
express reference to the said case. However, when the matter
came before a three-Judge Bench, the reference was not answered
and even after noticing that Ram Kumar Gijroya case [Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC
754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] covered Karn Singh Yadav [Karn
Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 1472] (two-Judges), the Court, however, denied relief to
Karn Singh Yadav, the petitioner by holding that since the appellant
–6– [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]
was never appointed to the post at that length of time it was not
possible to grant any relief to the appellant. Ram Kumar Gijroya
[Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
(2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] is clearly
distinguishable.
64. Be that as it may, we are bound by the judgment of the
three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok Kumar Sharma
v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] and we
follow the said judgment and reiterate the principle laid down
therein. It is also interesting to note that even in Deepak Yadav
[Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S)
809] , a judgment, strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the principle in Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok
Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 913] has been reiterated. However, because of what the
Court called an abnormal and cataclysmal year, an exception was
made due to the ongoing pandemic, lockdown and restrictions
imposed thereof. In Alok Kumar Singh [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of
U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265] , no rules like the
ones present in this case are shown to have existed. In the present
case, there are clear prescriptions as to eligibility, as has been
discussed hereinabove.”
8. In view of above, the issue in question is set at rest, on the basis
of above case wherein it has categorically been held that once the eligibility
criteria and the date before which the certificate should be possessed and the
date before the certificate is submitted is not fulfilled later on it cannot be
allowed and in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered
the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754.
9. Thus, the subject matter of the present case is fully covered in light of
above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the appointment process is
already over in the year 2013 itself.
10. In view of above, no case of interference is made out.
11. W.P.(S) No.4266 of 2013 is dismissed.
12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
--7-- [W.P.(C) No. 4266 of 2013]