The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal seeking to quash the notification whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected due to non-submission of a Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority and treating him as a General Category candidate. The court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was due to their failure to submit a required caste certificate as per the advertisement's terms and conditions, citing the binding nature of the advertisement's instructions and the inability to modify or relax them under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner approached this court to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher on the ground that he has secured 198 marks in the Jharkhand Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Examination, 2016 under Backward Category Candidate, whereas the cut-off marks of the BC-I category were 192 and BC-II was 198. The petitioner further prayed for quashing the notification whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected due to non-submission of a Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority and treating him as a General Category candidate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal in view of the fact that the petitioner has mentioned his caste as ‘Barai (BC-II)’ in the online application form on the basis of caste certificate issued by the competent authority. It is further argued that the action of the respondent is also illegal in view of the fact that the competent authority, who is empowered to issue caste certificate was not aware of the Resolution issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand and issued the caste certificate of the petitioner under BC-II category which was subsequently modified as BC-I category.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that since the petitioner has not submitted the valid caste certificate, hence, his candidature has been rejected. It is further argued that the said issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., wherein this Court has held that “since the petitioners failed to fulfil the requisite conditions stipulated in the advertisement and could not submit valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority within the stipulated period, their candidatures under respective reserved categories have rightly been rejected”.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the petitioner had to submit the required caste certificate, but the petitioner failed to submit the caste certificate as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the petitioner was also issued a show-cause notice, whereby, the petitioner was asked to submit his valid caste certificate but he failed to submit the same. Hence, his candidature was considered under the unreserved category and since he has obtained less marks than the last selected candidate under the Unreserved category, rightly his candidature has been rejected and not considered for appointment.
The court further observed that in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G. Hemlata & Anr., has observed that “instruction issued by the Commission are mandatory, having force of law and they are strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instruction is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission”.
The court stated that the instructions enshrined in the advertisement are binding on the candidates appearing in the recruitment process. No discretion in this regard can be shown by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution and the terms and the conditions of the Advertisement can neither be relaxed nor be altered and the said legal proposition is no more res integra.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Chourasiya vs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Pathak
Case No.: W.P.(S). No. 2683 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Amritansh Vats
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
