Jharkhand High Court
Sher Mohammad vs State Of Jharkhand on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 183 of 2024
----
Sher Mohammad, Aged about 28 years, son of Md. Ajij,
Resident of Chataniya Bag, P.O. Saram, P.S. Gomia,
District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand.
2.Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand through its Secretary
having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
3. Road Construction Department through its Secretary
having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
4.Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its
Secretary having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur,
District-Ranchi.
5.Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission having
office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi..
...Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC II
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
--------
C.A.V. on 05.08.2025 Pronounced on 26/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment
-1-
2025:JHHC:25442-DBdated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P.(S) No. 2543 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the
writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant has
been dismissed by holding that caste certificate produced
by the petitioner/appellant at the time of filling up the
online form of the mains examination cannot be said to be
sufficient compliance of production of the required caste
certificate.
Factual Aspect:
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made
in the writ petition, reads as under:
3. The Road Construction Department, Water Resources
Department and Drinking Water and Sanitation
Department, Government of Jharkhand sent requisitions
in the year 2015 for selection process for appointment of
Assistant Engineers (Civil) and Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) in the aforesaid departments. Consequently,
JPSC issued Advertisement No. 6 of 2015.
4. During the pendency of the selection process, the State
Government framed the appointment rules, namely
Jharkhand Engineering Services Appointment Rules,
2016. The Government of India also published office
Memorandum dated 31.01.2019 whereby 10% of the
reservation was provided for Economically Weaker Section
-2-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB(EWS). This led to amendment of Reservation Rules 2001
vide Resolution No. 1433 dated 15.02.2019; the
Ordinance vide Notification No. 248 dated 25.02.2019;
the Ordinance vide Notification No. 259 dated 08.07.2019
and Amendment Act vide Notification No. 285 dated
26.09.2019; the Reservation Rules i.e. The Jharkhand
Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (S.C, S.T
and O.B.C) was amended and notified vide notification
dated 08.07.2019 and was published in Gazette of the
State on Jharkhand on 08.07.2019. As a consequence of
the aforesaid developments, State Government withdrew
the advertisement pertaining to the Advertisement No. 6
of 2015.
5. Thereafter, the selection process started again and an
advertisement from Jharkhand Public Service
Commission was published inviting application for
appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and
Assistant Engineer (mechanical) under Road Construction
Department; Water Resource Department and Drinking
Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
being Advertisement No. 05/2019.
6. Accordingly, the combined Assistant Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical) preliminary test in pursuance of the
Advertisement No. 5/2019 was conducted by JPSC, in
-3-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
which, the petitioner-appellant also participated. The
JPSC published the result of preliminary test wherein
petitioner was declared to have been qualified. Thereafter,
the press communique was issued by JPSC in relation to
the Mains Competitive Examination whereby the declared
successful candidates in the combined Assistant Engineer
preliminary test were directed to send clear and eligible
self attested photocopy of required certificate in
accordance with entry made in online application along
with self signed printed copy of the online application by
registered/speed post necessary till 15.09.2020 in
accordance with para 12 of the Advertisement No.
5/2019.
7. The petitioner-appellant in compliance of the aforesaid
order sent the required document. Pursuant thereto, the
provisional Admit Card of Combined Assistant Engineer
Main Examination (to held from 22.10.2021 to
24.10.2021) was issued to petitioner-appellant in which
he participated.
8. Thereafter, the JPSC published the result of Combined
Assistant Engineer, Mains Examination in which
petitioner was declared to be successful and was called
for document verification and interview.
-4-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
9. Accordingly, the petitioner-appellant reported to the
JPSC office for document verification along with
certificates including caste certificate dated 29.02.2020,
which on verification was stated to be expired. Thereafter
the petitioner produced the certificate
JH0BCH/2022/01767 dated 27.01.2022 issued from the
office of S.D.O. Bermo and reported to the JPSC office for
appearing in the interview but the name of petitioner did
not appear in the list of successful candidates.
10. It is the case of the petitioner-appellant that the
mark statement of individual candidate of Combined
Assistant Engineer examination was uploaded by JPSC in
which remarks in the statement of petitioner thaat
“candidate got benefit of BC-1 category in PT and Mains
result but cast certificate submitted in central format hence
candidature rejected”.
11. It is further case of the petitioner that the cut-off
marks for mains examination of unreserved category
candidate is 788 and the final cut-off marks of BC-I
category is 671 whereas the petitioner obtained 796 but
his name did not find place in final result.
12. The petitioner-appellant made a representation by
e-mail to JPSC, allowing him to produce the OBC
certificate before the JPSC in required format within a
-5-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
week. The petitioner made representation to the
Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and
Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, the
Secretary, JPSC as well as the Secretary, Road,
Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, requesting
for consideration of his case for appointment vide email,
along with all the necessary documents that have been
produced by the petitioner till date including caste
certificate dated 27.01.2022, caste certificate issued by
C.O. Gomia dated 24.10.2021 and local resident
certificate issued by C.O. Gomia dated 04.11.2021.
13. But his case was not considered, therefore, the
petitioner-appellant approached this Court by invoking
the writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, being W.P.(S) No. 2543 of 2023,
which was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2024 holding
that caste certificate produced by the petitioner/appellant
at the time of filling up the online form of the mains
examination cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of
production of the required caste certificate, against which,
the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.
Submission on behalf of appellant-writ petitioner:
-6-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
14. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the
appellant has assailed the impugned order on the
following grounds.
15. It has been contended that rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner is per se illegal since once
the candidature has been accepted on the basis of details
furnished by the writ petitioner showing his case under
BC-I category, in subsequent stage, his candidature
ought not to have been rejected.
16. The JPSC has committed gross illegality in not
accepting the candidature of the writ petitioner under
BC-I Category and allowed to appear in interview after
document verification.
17. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the
fact that the caste category furnished on behalf of writ
petitioner-appellant at the time of submission of on-line
application has been substantiated by submitting on-line
caste certificate and in pursuance to the condition
stipulated under the advertisement. But even then, the
candidature of the writ petitioner has been rejected after
conclusion of the selection process. Hence, the
cancellation of the candidature of the writ petitioner in
such circumstances cannot be said to be just and proper.
-7-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
18. Further submission has been made that the
cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner-appellant
is contrary to the instruction given in paragraph 12(b) of
the Advertisement no. 05/2019. Further, as per
condition stipulated under paragraph 10(III)(ii), the cast
certificate was to be issued by the competent authority,
which in the case of petitioner is SDO, Bermo, that the
petitioner had submitted, therefore, the said caste
certificate submitted by the petitioner-appellant ought to
have been accepted by the respondent-JPSC but the
same was rejected on the hyper-technical ground that
the caste certificate is in the central format.
19. Submission has been made that the final cut-off
marks for unreserved category candidate is 788 and cut-
off marks for BC-I category is 671 but the petitioner-
appellant has obtained 796 i.e., more than that of
unreserved category and even if his candidature is not
accepted in BC-I category then also he was otherwise
ought to have been declared successful under unreserved
category, but that aspect of the matter has not been
appreciated by learned Single Judge.
20. In alternate, submission has been made that now
the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate in the
prescribed format, copy of which has been annexed with
-8-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
the Interlocutory Application and that may be allowed to
be submitted before the JPSC.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
his case as referred the judgments rendered by Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. [(2016)
4 SCC 754]; Anil Tanti Vs. State of Jharkhand & Or.
[2018(2) JBCJ 42 (HC); Tausif Raza Vs. The Union of
India & Ors [WPC No. 4572 of 2012]; Ms. Pushpa Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi [ 2009 SCC OnLIne Del
281; Tej Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
[120 (2005) DLT 117 and Latika Vs. Staff Selection
Commission & Ors. 2017 Law Suit (Del) 4528.
Submission behalf of respondents-JPSC:
22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
JPSC has taken the following grounds in defending the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
23. Submission has been made that it is the admitted
case of the writ petitioner-appellant that he had not
submitted the caste certificate in due format as per
condition stipulated in the advertisement rather the caste
certificate has been submitted in the format which has
been issued in the Central Govt. Format, which is not at
-9-
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
all applicable in the case of the petitioner in terms of the
advertisement.
24. Submission has been made that the contents and
the narration of the certificate issued under the Central
Government format and that of the State Government are
not the same. He has submitted that it is not that only
the creamy layer is to be considered but also the status
of the petitioner as to whether he falls under BC- I
category or BC-II category is required to be considered,
as per the Advertisement since there are different
percentages of reservations for BC-I and BC-II category.
25. The learned counsel submits that the certificate
produced by the petitioner did not reflect that he belongs
to BC-I category and therefore the candidature of the
petitioner has been rightly rejected.
26. It has been submitted that the parties are bound
by the terms and conditions of the advertisement. As per
the vertical reservation different reservation has been
provided for BC-I category and BC-II category. Referring
to clause 10 of the advertisement submission has been
made that the caste certificate was to be issued in terms
of the prescribed Form II which was in terms of the
circular issued by the State Government contained in the
letter no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 and it was also
– 10 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
indicated that the said format was available on the
website.
27. Learned counsel has further referred to clause 12
of the advertisement and has submitted that initially at
the time of filing of online application the certificate was
not required to be uploaded but the hard copy of the
certificate was to be submitted at the time of filling up of
the form for Mains Examination. The certificate which
was to be submitted in the Mains Examination was the
same certificate which was available to the candidate at
the time of filling of initial form. Clause 12 of the
advertisement further indicates that entry made in online
application and document submitted in Mains
Examination was required to be produced at the time of
physical verification of the certificate and on the date on
physical verification of the certificate, any other
certificate which was not mentioned in the online
application and not issued on the date of filling up the
form was not to be considered. The advertisement further
clarifies that once the application is submitted online no
changes would be admissible. But the caste certificate
produced by the petitioner-appellant was not in
consonance with the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, therefore, it was not rightly considered.
– 11 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
28. So far submission of appellant that he has
obtained more marks than the last selected candidate
under the general category, it has been submitted that
the appellant has the advantage of reservation at the
preliminary test as well as the main examination and,
therefore, the final calculation will have no bearing once
he has availed the reservation at the stage of preliminary
exams.
29. The learned counsel further submits that the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) has been
subsequently distinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment reported in 2023 Supreme (SC)
1053 (Divya v. Union of India) as would be evident
from paragraph nos. 51 to 56 of the said judgment.
30. The learned counsel has also relied upon the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Raj
Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand“, (2020) 1 JBCJ
465 (HC) and has referred to paragraph nos. 22, 23, 24,
28, 35 and 45 of the said judgment to submit that the
terms of advertisement is required to be followed and any
deviation therefrom is not acceptable and even the caste
certificate cannot be permitted to be produced at a later
date.
– 12 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
31. Learned counsel submits that the said judgment
was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 91
of 2020 which was filed by only one of the appellant-
petitioners and in the said case the specific plea of the
appellant-petitioner was that the caste certificate issued
in central format was sufficient and the caste certificate
which was produced in central format stood accepted by
the authority as the appellant was allowed to participate
and later on his candidature was rejected on the ground
that the caste certificate was not in the proper format.
However, the said plea was rejected and the appeal was
dismissed on account of failure to adhere with the
instructions in the advertisement. The learned counsel
has submitted that the present case is covered by the
said judgment.
32. The learned counsel further submits that there
are several judgments of this Court wherein it has been
held that the caste certificate in the required format, is to
be submitted failing which the candidature of the
candidate is to be rejected.
33. Learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC in
support of his submission has also relied upon
judgments rendered in the case of Rishi Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission and
– 13 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
others passed in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2015; W.P.(S) No.
869 of 2023 (Naodeepika Ekka Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and others; Divya Vs. Union of India &
Ors. reported in (2024) 1 SCC 448).
34. Learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC on the
aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this
Court.
Analysis
35. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of parties as also the pleading available in the
memo of appeal and the writ petition(s) and the
conditions stipulated in the advertisement.
36. On the pleadings available on record and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
the issue which requires consideration by this Court is
as to:
“I. Whether the candidature of the writ petitioner-appellant
can be rejected, on the ground of Caste Certificate, after the
writ petitioner having been allowed to participate in the
written examination [PT and Mains] and even interview on
that Caste Certificate?
II. Whether the cancellation of the candidature of the writ
petitioner can be said to be justified if the condition
– 14 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
stipulated in the advertisement regarding furnishing the
caste certificate in the due format as stipulated in the terms
and conditions of the advertisement, is not fulfilled?”
37. Both the issues since are inter-linked as such
they are taken up together for its consideration.
38. But before consideration of the said issues, the
conditions of the advertisement requiring to submit caste
certificate and the details to be furnished from the stage
of participation in the preliminary examination needs to
be referred herein.
“10- vkj{k.k dk ykHk %&
(I) izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds Online vkosnu esa vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk dksfV
dk nkok vafdr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA
(II) vkj{k.k dk ykHk dsoy >kj[k.M jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh
¼dkfeZd] iz’kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk”kk foHkkx] >kj[k.M ljdkj
ds i=kad&6763 fnukad&05-08-2016 ds vuqlkj½ dks >kj[k.M
ljdkj }kjk tkfr izek.k i= gsrq fu/kkZfjr fofgr izi= esa
mik;qDr@ vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh@ vapy vf/kdkjh Lrj ls fuxZr
tkfr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij gh ns; gksxkA
(III) vuqekU; tkfr izek.k i= gsrq foLr`r funs’k fuEuor~ gS %&
(i) vuqlwfpr tkfr @ vuqlwfpr tutkfr %&
>kj[k.M …….
(ii) fiNM+k oxZ&II ,oa vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ&I %&
>kj[k.M jkt; ds fiNM+k oxZ&II ,oa vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ&I dksfV
ds mEehnokjksa dks vkj{k.k dk YkkHk dkfeZd] iz’kklfud lq/kkj rFkk
jkTkHkk”kk foHkkx] >kj[k.M ds i=kad&1754 fnukad 25-02-2019
}kjk fu/kkZfjr fofgr izi=&11 ¼Øhehys;j jfgr½ esa >kj[k.M
jkT; ds l{ke izkf/kdkj }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij
ns; gksxkA fofgr izi= vk;ksx ds osclkbZV ij miyC/k gSA
(iii) vkfFkZd :Ik ls detksj ukxfjd oxZ ds fy, %&
…….
(g) [ksydwn dksVk ds vUrxZr vkj{k.k ds nkos
…….
12- vkosnu i= Hkjus gsrq vko’;d ‘krZ ,oa funsZ’k %&
(a) Online vkosnu ds lkFk fdlh rjg dk izek.k i= layXu
ugha djuk gS fdUrq vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa izek.k i=ksa ls lacaf/kr
dkWye esa lHkh okafNr lwpuk,a lgh&lgh vkafdr djuk gSA
– 15 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds lQy mEehnokjksa ds }kjk dafMdk&12 (q) esa
fufgr funs’k ds vuqlkj vkWuykbu vkosnu dh eqfnzr
LogLrk{kfjr izfr ds lkFk Online vkosnu esa dh xbZ izfof”V ds
vuq:Ik lHkh okafNr izek.k i=ksa dh Li”V ,oa iBuh;
LovfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr (Hard Copy) eq[; ijh{kk ds iwoZ
Online vkosnu dh izfr ds lkFk tek fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxk
ftldh lwpuk izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds ifj.kke izdk’ku ds mijkUr izsl
foKfIr ds ek/;e ls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks nh tk;sxhA Hard Copy tek
ugha djus okys mEehnokjksa dh mEehnokjh fujLr dj nh tk,xh
RkFkk mEehnokj blds fy, Lo;a ftEesokj gksx a sA
(b) lk{kkRdkj ds le; vfHkys[k lR;kiu ds nkSjku Online
vkosnu esa dh xbZ izfof”V ,oa rnuqlkj eq[; ijh{kk gsrq lefiZr
izek.k i=@ vfHkys[kksa dh ewy izfr izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk
vU;Fkk vkSicaf/kd :Ik ls Lohd`r vH;fFkZrk jí dj nh tk;sxh
rFkk blds fy, vkosnd Lo;a ftEesokj gksx a sA vfHkys[k lR;kiu
ds mijkUr vafre :Ik ls oS/k ,oa Lohd`r vH;FkhZ gh lk{kkRdkj ds
fy, ik= gksx a sA
(c) Jharkhand Public Service Commission ds osclkbZV
www.jpsc.gov.in ij Online Application System ds ek/;e ls
vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tk,xkA
(d) vH;FkhZ Online Application Hkyh&HkkWfr foKkiu esa fufgr
lHkh izko/kku ,oa funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj gh HkjsAa ,d ckj Online
Application esa dh x;h izfof”V (Entry) ds ckn mlesa fdlh
Hkh rjg ds ifjorZu dk vuqjks/k Lohdk;Z ugha gksxkA
(e) vkWuykbu (Online) vkosnu izi= Hkjus ds iwoZ “How to
apply” ¼vkosnu dSls djsa½ vk;ksx ds osclkbV www.jpsc.gov.in
ij vo’; i<+As foKkiu laca/kh tkudkjh ds fy, vk;ksx ds Help
Line No.- 0651@2213009 ij vkosnu tek djus dh vafre
frfFk rd dk;Z fnol esa lqcg&10.00 cts ls ‘kke 05:00 cts
rd laidZ fd;k tk ldrk gSA
(f) vkWuykbu vkosnu Hkjus esa dksbZ vlqfo/kk gksus ij vk;sx ds
Help Line No. ij dk;Z fnol esa lqcg 10:00 cts ls ‘kke cts
05:00 rd laidZ fd;k tk ldrk gS %&
(g) ijh{kk ‘kqYd tek djus ds lac/a k esa fdlh rjg dh tkudkjh
ds fy, Payment Helpline No. – 0651/2213009 ij laidZ
fd; tk ldrk gSA
(h) Online Application System ds }kjk okafNr LFkku ij
vH;FkhZ viuk Li”V jaxhu ¼ikliksVZ lkbZTk½ QksVksxzkQ ,oa gLrk{kj
LdSu dj layXu djuk lqfuf’pr djsx a sAa fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij
QksVksxzkQ ,oa gLRkk{kj ugha jgus ij vkosnd dh vH;fFkZRkk jí dj
nh tk;sxhA
(i) vkosnu i= ij gLrk{kj dks NksMd + j vkosnu i= ds ‘ks”k
dkWye vaxzsth ds cM+s v{kjks (BLOCK LETTERS) esa gh Hkjk
gksuk pkfg,A
(j) vkosnd viuk uke] firk dk uke dh oÙkZuh (Spelling) ogh
fy[ksx
a ]s tks eSfVªd ds lfVZfQdsV@ vad i= esa vafdr gSA
– 16 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
(k) tUe frfFk&vkosnd ds eSfVªd izek.k i=@ vad i= es]a tks
mudh tUe frfFk vafdr ;Fkk frfFk] eghuk vkSj o”kZ gS ogh
vkonsu i= ds ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij fy[ksaA
(l) vkosnu Hkjrs le; vkosnd ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lacfa /kr
fooj.kh] mex laca/kh izosf’kdk ¼eSfVªd½ izek.k i=] tkfr izek.k
i=] fu%’kDrrk izek.k i=] HkwriwoZ lSfud izek.k i= ¼tgk¡ ykxw gks½
vkWuykbu (Online) vkosnu i= ds fu/kkZfjr dafMdkvksa esa
vfuok;Z :Ik ls izfo”V djsaxsA
(m) p;u izfØ;k fcuk djk.k crk;s fdlh Hkh le; la’kksf/kr]
LFkfxr ;k jí djus dk vf/kdkj vk;ksx ds ikl lqjf{kr jgsxkA
(n) vH;fFkZ;ksa dk ijh{kk ‘kqYd vk;ksx dks fofgr ek/;e ls izkIr
ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkosnu jí fd;k tk ldrk gSA
(o) vH;Fkh }kjk Online vkosnu esa nh xbZ lwpuk,¡ ,oa rnuq:i
eq[; ijh{kk ds iwoZ Online vkosnu dh izfr ds lkFk lefiZr
izek.k i= ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds fdlh Hkh Lrj ij tk¡p ds Øe esa
dksbZ xyr lwpuk] rF; fNikus ;k fHkUurk dh fLFkfr ik;s tkus
ij vk;ksx ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk jí djus ds fy, Lora=
gksxk rFkk vH;FkhZ blds fy, Lo;a ftEesokj gksx
a sA
(p) vH;FkhZ eq[; ijh{kk ds vkosnu i= esa lgh&lgh lwpuk izfo”V
djrs gq, lacaf/kr izek.k i=@ vfHkys[k ¼dafMdk&12 (q) ds
vuqlkj vfuok;Z :Ik ls layXu dj eq[; ijh{kk ds iwoZ fu/kkZfjr
frfFk rd lefiZr djsx
a sA Hkwy lq/kkj@ =qfV fujkdj.k dk dksbZ
volj ugha nf;k tk,xkA
(q) vH;Fkh vkWuykbu vkosnu dh eqfnzr LogLrk{kfjr izfr ds
lkFk lHkh okafNr fuEu izek.k i=ksa dh LovfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr
Hard Copy vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa eq[; ijh{kk ds iwoZ Online
vkosnu esa dh xbZ izfof”V ds vuq:i fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd vfuok;Z
:Ik ls tek djuk lqfuf’pr djsxa s %&
(i) tUe frfFk ds fy, eSfVªd@10oha mÙkh.kZ izek.k i=@
vad i=
(ii) baVjehfM,V ;k 10+2 mÙkh.kZrk izek.k i=A
(iii) vfHk;a=.k dh lacaf/kr ‘kk[kk esa rduhdh Lukrd
(B.Tech/B.E) mÙkh.kZrk laca/kh izek.k i= ,oa vad i=A
(iv) tkfr izek.k i= fofgr izi= esa ¼>kj[k.M jkT; ds
vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlfw pr tutkr] vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ&I
,oa fiNM+k oxZ&II ds vH;fFkZ;ksa gsrq½
(v) EWS dk fofgr izi= esa l{ke Lrj ls fuxZr izek.k
i=A
– 17 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
(vi) l{ke izkf/kdkj }kjk iw.kZ lwpukvksa lfgr fofgr izi=
esa fuxZr fu%’kDrrk izek.k i= ¼fu%’kDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks
ijh{kk ‘kqYd esa NwV rFkk fu%’kDrrk nkok gsrq½
(vii) HkwriwoZ lSfud izek.k i= ¼mez lhek esa NwV gsrq½
(viii) vukifÙk izek.k i= ¼tgk¡ ykxw gks½A
(ix) [ksy&dwn izek.k i= ¼tgk¡ ykxw gks½A
39. It is evident from condition 10 of the
advertisement, which deals with „benefit of reservation in
particular condition no. 10 (I) that it would be mandatory
for the candidate to claim the category to get the benefit
of reservation while submitting online application.
40. Further, the condition no. 10(II) of the
advertisement says that the benefit of reservation will be
given to only the permanent resident of the State of
Jharkhand, as per letter no. 6763 dated 05.08.2016 of
the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, in the prescribed
format of caste certificate issued by the
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer/Circle Officer. At
condition no. 10(III)(i), the caste certificate related to
Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe has been mentioned.
41. At condition no. 10(III) (ii), there is reference of
certificate for „Backward Class-II‟ and „Extremely
Backward Class-I‟. It has been mentioned therein that for
claiming the benefit under the category of „Backward
– 18 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
Class-II‟ and „Extremely Backward Class-I‟ the candidate
has to obtain certificate in the format prescribed as per
letter no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 of the Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand and the format of the said
certificate(s) has been given in the website.
42. The condition no. 12 of the advertisement
stipulates with respect to essential condition and
directives for filling up the form.
43. As per Clause 12 (a), at the time of filling up the
form for preliminary examination, no certificate was
required to be submitted but the various columns were
to be correctly filled up and the hard copies of the
certificates were to be submitted along with online
application for mains examination.
44. The candidates who qualify the preliminary
examination were required to follow the instruction in
terms of clause 12 (q) of the advertisement and the self-
certified hard copies of the required certificates were to
be filed along with the online form for mains
examination. Clause 12 (q) provided the list of documents
which were to be submitted along with the online
application for mains examination which included caste
certificate in the prescribed form. It was also clearly
– 19 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
indicated under clause 12 (a) that on account of non-
submission of hard copy of the documents, the
candidature of the candidate would be cancelled.
45. Clause 12 (b) also provided that candidature will
be acceptable only on provisional basis and the original
of the documents/certificates were to be produced for
verification and after verification of the documents, the
candidate would be entitled to appear for interview.
46. Thus, the aforesaid terms and conditions of the
advertisement clearly provide that though the
candidature under one or the other category was
required to be claimed at the time of filling up of the
initial form for preliminary examination but the required
certificates were to be submitted only at the time of filling
up of the online form of mains examination. The hard
copies of the certificates were required to be submitted
along with the online application for mains examination
and no changes could be made once the online
application was submitted and on account of non-
submission of document the candidature will be
cancelled.
47. The aforesaid fact since is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the appellant and as such the
question which is to be considered that if caste certificate
– 20 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
has been given in deviation to the condition stipulated in
advertisement, can the candidature of the writ petitioner
be accepted.
48. The aforesaid issue has already been dealt with by
this Court in the case of Pawan Oraon vs. State of
Jharkhand and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2861,
wherein the consideration has been given upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of Mohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1125 and by putting reliance upon the same, this
Court has passed order that if the caste certificate has
not been submitted in due format, and due to this if the
candidature of such candidate has been rejected, the
same cannot be said to suffer from an illegality. Relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:
29. The seminal issue which requires consideration in this
case is as to “Whether the condition which had been
stipulated in the Advertisement No. 01 of 2021 pertaining
to submission of caste certificate as provided under Clause
7(a) of the said Advertisement if has not been complied
with, the candidature of such candidate is to be accepted
or not?”
39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has also
taken into consideration the fact about the non-submission
of the caste certificate not in the due format as provided
has been pleased to hold that no benefit can be given of
the reservation to the candidate claiming to be under the
reserved category, the reference of the relevant paragraph
– 21 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
along with the case facts are referred herein which reads
as under:
2. Respondent no. 3/Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board issued a
notification on 24th February 2021 for direct
recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police
and Platoon Commander, PAC and Fire Officer, for the
year 2020-2021. The appellant-Mohit Kumar5, on
20th April 2021, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector,
Civil Police as well as for Platoon Commander and
was thereafter called for examination, which was
held on 17th May 2022.
3. Pursuant to the examinations conducted by
UPPRPB, Mohit scored 313.84 marks. A list of non-
selected candidates came to be published, which
featured Mohit’s registration number at serial number
11108. Aggrieved thereby, Mohit made a
representation to UPPRPB on 21st July 2022.
Receiving no response, Mohit moved a writ
petition6 before the High Court, praying that his
representation be considered. The High Court, on
4th August 2022, directed the Superintendent of
Police, UPPRPB, to consider the representation and
pass a reasoned order thereon within 4 weeks.
4. Respondent no. 4, by its speaking order dated
15th September 2022, rejected Mohit’s representation
on the ground that he did not submit OBC certificate
in the format prescribed at the time of initial
recruitment release and, thus, he was considered in
the general category instead of the OBC category. The
cut-off marks for the general category were 316.11,
whereas for the OBC category it was 305.542. The
order also stated that as per Mohit’s own case, at the
time of application, he had mentioned the certificate
issued by the Central Government instead of the
State Government.
5. Mohit yet again approached the High Court by way
of a writ petition, challenging the order rejecting his
– 22 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
representation. The High Court, by its judgment and
order dated 22nd March 2023, dismissed the writ
petition while holding that the order impugned in the
petition did not call for interference. The order of the
High Court rejecting Mohit’s writ petition has been
impugned in the lead appeal.
14. What follows from the above decision is that
irrespective of whether an aspirant for public
employment belongs to a particular community like
SC/ST/OBC, the status claimed by him for being
accorded the benefit of reservation is per se not
decisive. Such status has to be certified by the
competent authority upon following due process and
identification that the aspirant is what he claims to
be. In Shrinivas Prasad Shah (supra), the requirement
of production of a certificate from the competent
authority was held to be mandatory in view of a
statutory mandate. Although there is no such
statutory mandate in the facts of the present case, the
requirement in question is no less mandatory and
must be scrupulously followed. Once a process of
recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled
in law to equal treatment. There cannot be different
yardsticks for different sets of aspirants. Non-
compliance with the terms of the
advertisement/notification is bound to trigger adverse
consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s claimed
status by the selecting body/appointing authority,
should he choose not to adhere to the same. Having
regard thereto, the selecting body/appointing
authority would be justified in not entertaining the
application of an aspirant as a member of the
community for whom reservations are permissible.
15. The proposition of law as settled by the above
decision does not appear to have been doubted in any
subsequent decision and we do hereby endorse the
same.
– 23 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
16. Let us now examine whether in the light of the
settled law in this behalf, Mohit and Kiran deserve
any relief.
17. Clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification has
been noticed above. It clearly warns what the
consequence would be should an aspirant fail to
submit the requisite certificate in Format-I.
Admittedly, the certificates submitted by Mohit and
Kiran do not align with Format-I. Viewed thus, we
need not even carry the discussion forward to
ascertain whether Mohit and Kiran have been
unfairly treated. However, since it has been
assiduously argued by Mr. Kaushik that Mohit after
all belongs to the OBC category, and Mr. Kumar
Gaurav appearing for Kiran has supported him, we
consider it proper to deal with such argument too.
18. Here, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is the
appointing authority. The appointments would follow,
once UPPRPB makes the necessary recommendations.
The entire process of recruitment is regulated by
statutory rules. Is it open to an aspirant or group of
aspirants, who do not comply with the terms of the
recruitment notification, to raise questions once the
result(s) of selection is/are not palatable to
him/them?
19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an
advertisement issued in connection with a selection
process are normally not open to challenge unless the
challenge is founded on the ground of breach of
Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter,
Article 14. Once an advertisement is issued inviting
applications for public employment, it is the
responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and
note the terms and understand what its requirements
are. If any aspirant finds any of the terms ambiguous
and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the
advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation,
an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for
– 24 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
understanding the requirements accurately. If no such
scope is available, nothing prevents the aspirant from
seeking clarity by making a representation. Should
such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may
participate in the process without prejudice to his
rights and may question the term even after he is not
selected. However, if the aspirant does not make any
such effort and takes a calculated chance of selection
based on his own understanding of the disputed term
in the advertisement and later, he emerges
unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him
to challenge the selection on the ground that the
disputed term is capable of being understood
differently. In such cases, the courts should be loath
to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to
accept the recruiting authority’s understanding of the
said term. This is for the simple reason that the
recruiting authority is the best judge of what its
requirements are and it is such understanding of the
recruiting authority that would matter most in cases
brought up before the courts; hence, after
commencement of the process wherein aspirants have
participated without raising any demur as to what a
particular terms means, even if any of the terms be
ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the
recruiting authority.
20. We are conscious of what this Court observed in
paragraphs 15 to 19 of its decision in Meeta
Sahai v. State of Bihar24 under the heading
„Preliminary Issues‟. If the procedure followed by the
selecting body/appointing authority is such that the
same is in breach of constitutional safeguards, an
aspirant’s challenge to the procedure may not be
nipped in the bud only on the ground that he has
participated in the process. We also read the decision
as recognizing that it may not always be possible for
an aspirant to foresee any illegality in the procedure
followed, till such time the select list is published. In
– 25 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
all such cases where the illegality could not have
been foreseen, a challenge to the procedure cannot be
spurned on the specious ground that the aspirant
having participated in the process, he has forfeited
his right.
21. Be that as it may, clause 5.4(4) with which we
are concerned is far from ambiguous. It is absolutely
clear what UPPRPB required and what would be the
consequence of non-adherence. In the wake of such
requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota
of doubt as to the format in which the certificate was
to be issued. Even if Mohit and Kiran had doubts as
to whether the certificates that they had would
suffice, nothing prevented them from seeking such
clarification and, at the same time, approach the
concerned tehsildars to issue certificates in the
requisite format. It has not been shown that obtaining
a second certificate in the format required by the
State Government was barred by any law. Having
regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran cannot take
shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of
UPPRPB of certificates issued in the requisite format
is a mere formality which could have been dispensed
with since they had certificates issued in the other
format.
22. Finally, the reason why UPPRPB has insisted for
the certificate in the requisite format as explained by
Ms. Goel [recorded in paragraph 9 (vi) to (viii) above]
commends our acceptance.
23. We are conscious that aspirants similarly placed
like Mohit and Kiran have been granted relief by the
High Court earlier and coordinate Benches of this
Court have not interfered with such decisions.
However, in all such cases, the special leave petitions
were dismissed at the admission stage and,
therefore, do not operate as binding precedents.
40. This Court after having referred the aforesaid
judgments and adverting to the factual aspect of the
– 26 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
present case wherein admitted case of the appellant-
petitioner that he has not submitted the caste certificate
based upon the due format as provided under Clause 7(a)
and 7(c)(i) of the advertisement.
41. The consequence has also been provided in Condition
No. 7(b) therefore, the Commission after taking into
consideration the Clause No. 7(a) read with Condition No.
7(b) has not considered the candidature of the appellant-
petitioner under reserved category.
42. Although, the candidature of the appellant-petitioner
has been accepted at the initial stage by allowing him by
participating in the preliminary examination and thereafter
in the written examination but as per the terms and
conditions of the advertisement contained in condition no.
7(b), the Document Verification along with caste certificate
is to be verified at the time of Interview. For ready
reference, the said condition is being referred herein which
reads as under:
43. The appellant-petitioner has tried to impress upon the
Court that candidature since has been accepted at the time
of participating in the preliminary examination and the
written examination and as such at the time of interview,
during verification of document, the candidature of the
appellant should not have been rejected.
44. But this Court is not impressed with such argument,
reason being that in view of the specific condition
stipulated in the advertisement under Clause 7(b) wherein
it has been provided that the Document Verification
including the caste certificate is to be verified at the time of
the Interview. The Commission, at the time of scrutiny of
document, has found that the caste certificate of the
appellant is not in terms of the condition stipulated in the
Clause 7(a) and 7(c)(i) and as such his candidature has
been rejected.
– 27 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
45. The appellant-petitioner thereafter has approached
this Court by filing writ petition by taking the ground that
the caste certificate was there, but the learned Single
Judge has not accepted such submission due to two
reasons. i.e., the caste certificate, based upon which the
claim of reservation had been claimed, is not in the due
format as per the stipulation made the advertisement.
46. The second ground is that the caste certificate which
has been produced by the appellant-petitioner is made
only for the purpose of consideration of appointment to the
posts/admission to the Central Educational Institution
(C.E.I.s) under the Government of India.
47. The aforesaid view having been taken by the learned
Single Judge, which according to the considered view of
this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error due to the
following reasons:
(i) The conditions stipulated in the advertisement if coupled
with the consequence is considered to be mandatory as
discussed and referred herein above.
(ii) The admitted case of the appellant-petitioner that the
caste certificate is not on the basis of the due format as
provided under Clause 7(c)(i) and hence in view of the
aforesaid admitted fact based upon the consequence, if the
caste certificate has not been submitted on the basis of the
condition stipulated in advertisement in such
circumstances, the Commission has rejected the
candidature of the appellant-petitioner for its consideration
under the ST category and the same cannot be said to be
suffer from an error.
(iii) The aforesaid condition has been taken into
consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Mithlesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand (supra)
wherein also the view which has been accepted by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order has been
upheld.
(iv) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has pleased to
hold that the condition stipulated in the advertisement so
– 28 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
far as lays to the submission of caste certificate in due
format which is mandatory to be followed and if it has not
been followed, then the consequence, would be the
rejection of the candidature here in the ST category, so as
not have any benefit of reservation.
48. This Court after having discussed the aforesaid fact
and adverting to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has
primarily taken into consideration the condition stipulated
in Condition No. 7(a) and (c)(i) along with the consequence
and considering also the admitted fact that the appellant-
petitioner had failed to produce the caste certificate in
terms of the said clause, rather the caste certificate which
was produced for the purpose of consideration of
appointment to the posts/admission to the Central
Educational Institution (C.E.I.s) under the Government of
India.
49. The submission of the caste certificate is not
material rather the condition stipulated in the
advertisement is of importance in view of the principle
that there is condition stipulated in the advertisement,
the same is strictly to be adhered to, reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 as also the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin
International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617.
– 29 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
50. The issue which has been raised by learned
counsel for the appellant that candidature ought not to
have been rejected after allowing the writ petitioner to
participate in the Preliminary Test and Main
Examination is concerned, the same cannot be of any
benefit to the writ petitioner due to the reason that if the
format of the caste certificate itself is contrary to the
condition stipulated in the advertisement then no right
will be said to be accrued in favour of the writ petitioner
during the course of recruitment process and if the same
has been noticed by the Commission at the time of
scrutiny of the documents and if the application has not
been found to be in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the advertisement and if in such
circumstances, the candidature of the candidate has
been rejected then it is not available for such candidate
to take the ground that since the candidate has been
allowed to participate in the process of selection,
rejection of candidature of such candidate will be said to
be unjustified rather if candidature will not be rejected
then the action of the Commission will be unjustified in
view of the fact that the condition stipulated in the
advertisement will be flouted.
– 30 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
51. The further reason for the illegality said to be
committed by the Commission in such circumstances
would be that the condition of advertisement in such
circumstances would be said to be relaxed in favour of
the writ petitioner and the same is not permissible due to
the simple reason that if it is permissible for the writ
petitioner then why not for others and in that aspect of
the mater the conduct of the Commission will be said to
suffer from error.
52. It needs to refer herein the settled position of law
that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and
conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is
specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in
the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is
provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the
advertisement. Reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered in the case of Bedanga
Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85.
Paragraph 29 from the aforesaid judgment is quoted as
under:
29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our
opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration
that all appointments to public office have to be made in
conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from
any undue favour being shown to any candidate.
Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted
– 31 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection
procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is
mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be
scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation
in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless
such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could
be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power
of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be
mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such
power in the rules, it could still be provided in the
advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if
exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be
necessary to ensure that those candidates who become
eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal
opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any
condition in advertisement without due publication would
be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly
show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion,
the High Court committed an error in directing that the
condition with regard to the submission of the disability
certificate either along with the application form or before
appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed
in the case of Respondent.
31. Such a course would not be permissible as it would
violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little
hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by
the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the
record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in
the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement
unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the
relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is
a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still
have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In
the present case, no such rule has been brought to our
– 32 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not
have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim
of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted
after the selection process was over, with the publication
of the select list.””
53. Further it is also the settled position of law as
settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that in the matter of
appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered
powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned,
but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The
court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless
the appointments so made, or the rejection of a
candidature is found to have been done at the cost of
“fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”, reference in
this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545,
wherein at paragraph-12, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
been pleased to observe which is being referred as under:
“12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for
admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of
the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter
of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary,
unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind
the nature of service, for which appointments are to be
made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to
be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed
even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the
person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance
that he should be governed only by the rules existing,
– 33 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
when he joined service. In the matter of appointments,
the authority concerned has unfettered powers so
far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it
must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The
court should therefore, refrain from interfering,
unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of
a candidature is found to have been done at the cost
of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”.”
54. This Court, after adverting to the factual aspect as
also the legal position, and coming back to the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge wherein learned
Single Judge has considered the judgment rendered by
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya
(supra), upon which learned counsel for the appellant
has put reliance and differentiating the said judgment in
the facts involving the said case, as would be evident
from paragraph 60 of the impugned judgment by coming
out with the view that in the case of Ram Kumar
Gijroya (supra) there was no rule or condition in the
advertisement with regards to production of the caste
certificate and it was only while declaring the result, the
requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before the
cut-off date was introduced by the Selection Authority.
But, in the present case there is a specific provision in
the advertisement itself that the documents were
required documents to be submitted along with the
– 34 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
online form at the time of filling up the online form of the
mains examination.
55. This Court is of the view that if the reliance is
placed on the judgement passed in the case of Ram
Kumar Gijroya (supra) so as to consider the caste
certificate produced by the petitioner after filling up the
online form and mains examination form, that would
amount to ignoring a vital condition of the advertisement.
Such a course is not permissible under law. Thus, the
judgment passed in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya
(supra) and other judgments are not applicable to the
facts of this case in the light of the specific terms and
conditions of the advertisement regarding production of
caste certificate.
56. It is further evident from paragraph 54 to 58 of
the impugned judgment wherein the learned Single
Judge has taken into consideration the condition
stipulated in the advertisement being condition no.
10(iii)(ii) reading together with 12(a) and 12(q) and come
to the conclusion that the certificate of the caste category
dated 29.02.2020 was not in the due format as
formulated by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms,
and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand rather
in the Central Format.
– 35 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
57. The Caste certificate dated 19.08.2017 which has
been referred at paragraph 61 of the impugned judgment
has not been produced by the writ petitioner rather for
the first time same was produced before the learned writ
Court and therefore, a pin-pointed question was asked to
the writ petitioner as to whether the caste certificate
dated 19.08.2017 has ever been submitted along with
the application before the Commission, the answer of the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner, which was given
before the learned writ Court was that the caste
certificate dated 19.08.2017 was not ever submitted
along with the application before the Commission rather
the said certificate dated 19.08.2017 was produced for
the first time before this Court. It is also admitted by the
petitioner that in the caste certificate dated 29.02.2020,
the error was only in terms of the format and was
submitted along with the application and in this regard,
the learned Single Judge has noted in paragraph 57 of
the impugned judgment that aforesaid cast certificate
dated 29.02.2020 was issued in Central Format and the
content/specifications as to whether the petitioner
belongs to BC-I or BC-II category was totally absent.
Hence, the condition as stipulated in the advertisement
of submitting the caste certificate in format prescribed as
– 36 –
2025:JHHC:25442-DB
per letter no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 issued by the
Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Rajbhasha
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand since has not been
submitted, hence, the condition of the advertisement
particularly clause 10(III)(ii) has not been followed and in
that view of the matter, if the candidature of the
petitioner has been rejected, the learned Single Judge
has come to the conclusion that such cancellation of the
candidature cannot be faulted with.
58. The aforesaid view as taken by learned Single
Judge, as per the discussion made herein above,
according to our considered view cannot be faulted with.
59. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal fails
and is dismissed.
60. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/
A.F.R
- 37 -
[ad_1]
Source link