Gauhati High Court
Dr. Md. Sarwar Jahan vs The State Of Assam And And 6 Ors on 22 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010228562023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/402/2023
DR. MD. SARWAR JAHAN
S/O MD. ABDUR RASHID,
VILL.- BORJURAI, P.O.- BOALIPAR BAZAR, P.S.- HAILAKANDI, DIST.-
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND AND 6 ORS.
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 19.
4:THE PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY
PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHAYA GOVT. MODEL COLLEGE KATLICHERA
P.O.- SULTANICHERA
PIN 788162
DIST. HAILAKANDI.
5:THE PRINCIPAL CUM SECRETARY
PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHAYA GOVT. MODEL COLLEGE
KATLICHERA
Page No.# 2/15
P.O. SULTANICHERA
PIN- 788162
DIST. HAILAKANDI.
6:THE PRINCIPAL
GOVT. MODEL COLLEGE
BORKHOLA
P.O.- JARAITOLA
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788127.
7:DR. MITHUN PAUL
S/O LATE HARIDAS PAUL
R/O GOBINDAPALLY
P.O.- AND P.S.- HOJAI
DIST.- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782435
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN, MR S ABDULLAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. S R BARBHUIYA (R-5),MR. A H M R
CHOUDHURY (R-5),MR K K MEDHI (r-7),MR. S K MEDHI (r-7),MRS. M BARMAN (R-7)
Linked Case : WA/407/2023
DR. MITHUN PAUL
S/O LATE HRIDAS PAUL
R/O GOBINDAPALLY
P.O. AND P.S. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN 782435
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF EDUCATION (HIGHER) DISPUR
P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
GUWAHATI 781006
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/15
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF EDUCATION (HIGHER) DISPUR
P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
GUWAHATI 781006
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 19
4:THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY
PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHAYA GOVERRNMENT MODEL COLLEGE
KATLICHERRA
P.O. SULTANICHERA
PIN 788162
DIST. HAILAKANDI
5:THE PRINCIPAL CUM SECY. OF PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPDHAYA GOVT.
MODEL COLLEGE
KATLICHERRA
P.O. SULTANICHERA
PIN 788162
DIST. HAILAKANDI
6:DR. (MD.) SARWAR JAHAN
C/O PRINCIPAL
PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHAYA GOVT. MODEL COLLEGE KATLICHERRA
HAILAKANDI
DIST. HAILAKANDI
7:THE PRINCIPAL
GOVT. MODEL COLLEGE
BORKHOLA
P.O. JARAITOLA
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 788127
------------
Advocate for : MR. S K MEDHI
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
Page No.# 4/15
For the appellants : Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, Advocate
(In WA 402/2023)
Mr. S.K. Medhi, Advocate
(In WA 407/2023)
For the respondents : Mr. K. Gogoi,
Mr. A.R. Tahbildar,
S.C., Higher Education Deptt.
Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, Advocate for respondent No.6 in WA
407/2023
Mr. S.K. Medhi, Advocate for respondent No.7 in WA
402/2023
Date of hearing & judgment : 22.09.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard Mr. A. R. Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellant in WA
No. 402/2023 (private respondent in WA No. 407/2023) and Mr. S. K. Medhi,
learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 407/2023 (private respondent in WA
No. 402/2023). We have also heard Mr. K. Gogoi and Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned
counsel representing the State/respondents.
Both the appeals being inter-connected, have been heard together and are
being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. WA 402/2023 has been filed by Dr. Md. Sarwar Jahan challenging the
judgment dated 08.09.2023 passed in Review Pet. No.183/2022, in WP(C)
No.4660/2021; whereas WA 407/2023 has been filed by Dr. Mithun Paul against
the same judgment but only to the extent of the observation made in the
Page No.# 5/15
impugned judgment, giving liberty to the respondents to take steps for filling up
the posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Education in Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyaya Govt. Model College, Katlicherra in the district of
Hailakandi, by a fresh process as per law.
3. By Advertisement No. 01/2020 dated 13.08.2020, for filling up posts in
various departments in the college in question, including the department of
Education, which is under consideration in the afore-noted appeals, 3 (three)
posts of Assistant Professor in the Education Department, one each for
unreserved category, OBC/MOBC category and for SC category, were advertised.
4. Both the appellants, i.e. Dr. Sarwar Jahan (appellant in WA 402/2023)
and Dr. Mithun Paul (appellant in WA 407/2023) applied for the post of Assistant
Professor in the Education Department in the OBC category.
5. Dr. Sarwar Jahan claimed to belong to the OBC category on the strength
of a certificate of OBC issued by the State of West Bengal. His candidature as an
OBC category candidate was questioned by Dr. Mithun Paul at the stage of
recruitment on the ground that Dr. Sarwar Jahan had applied in another college
as a General Category candidate and that the OBC certificate submitted by him
was issued by the State of West Bengal and also for the reason that he is a
resident of district Malda in the State of West Bengal.
6. However, Dr. Sarwar Jahan was selected and was issued appointment
letter on 20.09.2021.
7. Dr. Mithun Paul challenged such appointment before this Court vide
WP(C) 4660/2021 on the ground that caste status is a state-wise concept and a
person of a reserved or other backward community in one State may not readily
Page No.# 6/15
be conferred that status in another State.
8. By order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) 4660/2021, the
appointment letter of Dr. Sarwar Jahan (appellant in WA 402/2023) was put in
abeyance. Dr. Sarwar Jahan thereafter filed an interlocutory application seeking
to get the stay order vacated.
9. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.02.2022, after hearing the
parties, dismissed the writ petition itself holding that though the appointment of
Dr. Sarwar Jahan has been put to challenge, there is no reference in such
challenge to the appointment order and that the claim of Dr. Sarwar Jahan was
based on a certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Assam,
which declared him to be belonging to 'Jolha' caste, which admittedly falls under
OBC/MOBC category in the State of Assam. Though the learned Single Judge
noted that there are some anomalies in the case because two Caste Certificates
had been issued by two different States regarding the caste status of Dr. Sarwar
Jahan, but chose to dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. Mithun Paul, but leaving
it open for him to challenge the claim of Dr. Sarwar Jahan of his belonging to
OBC/MOBC category.
10. Without losing heart, Dr. Mithun Paul challenged the afore-noted order
17.02.2022, referred to above, vide WA 110/2022. On the submission made on
behalf of Dr. Mithun Paul (appellant in WA 407/2023) that the last date for
submission of application was 26.08.2020, whereas the certificate issued by the
State of Assam was pressed into service after that last date, directed Dr. Mithun
Paul to file appropriate application for clarification of the order dated 17.02.2022
in WP(C) No.4660/2021 on that aspect.
Page No.# 7/15
11. Hence, review petition No.183/2022 was filed by Dr. Mithun Paul.
12. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the facts of the case, found that
Dr. Sarwar Jahan was in possession of two Caste Certificates issued by two
different States, viz. the State of West Bengal and the State of Assam. The
Caste Certificate/Notification issued by the State of West Bengal declared Dr.
Sarwar Jahan to be a person belonging to "Khotta" Muslim community, which
falls under the OBC category in the State of West Bengal; whereas the Caste
Certificate/Notification issued by the Government of Assam declared him to be a
person belonging to "Jolha" caste, which also falls under the OBC category in
the State of Assam.
13. That apart, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the Caste
Certificate issued by the Assam Government was never submitted by Dr. Sarwar
Jahan by the last date of submission of application in terms of the
advertisement and, therefore, the same could not have been considered.
However, the issue on which the decision hinged was that Dr. Sarwar Jahan
could not be in possession of two certificates issued by two different States
declaring him to be belonging to two different castes. On this ground, the
learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 08.09.2023, passed in Review
Petition No. 183/2022, reviewed the order dated 17.02.2022 passed in WP(C)
4660/2021 along with I.A. (Civil) 2298/2021, and allowed the writ petition filed
by Dr. Mithun Paul and set aside the selection and appointment of Dr. Sarwar
Jahan as Assistant Professor in Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Government
Model College, Hailakandi.
14. Dr. Sarwar Jahan (appellant in WA 402/2023) has questioned the afore-
noted judgment dated 08.09.2023 on various grounds, the primary one being
Page No.# 8/15
that under review jurisdiction, the writ petition could not have been revived and
disposed off; rather, the correct course would have had been to recall the earlier
order and hear out the parties, especially when the WA No. 110/2022 had not
been disposed off and remained pending for final consideration. The other
ground of challenge was that notwithstanding the non-submission of Caste
Certificate issued by the State of Assam by the last date meant for submitting
the application, the caste status of Dr. Sarwar Jahan would not have changed.
Furnishing of certificate/declaration was only a proof of his eligibility and,
therefore, he ought not to have been non-suited.
15. In support of the afore-noted contention, Dr. Sarwar Jahan (appellant in
WA 402/2023) cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar
Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others, (2016) 4
SCC 754; Tej Pal Singh and others vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and
another, (2000) 83 DLT 649; Union of India vs. Abdul Rasheed, (2016) 3
ILR (Ker) 777; and Tajing Yaying vs. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission in which judgment was delivered on 29.05.2019.
16. Additionally it was argued that the genuineness of the notification/Caste
Certificate issued to him by the Sate of Assam was never questioned, and
considering that certificate, appointment letter dated 20.09.2021 had been
issued to him.
17. On behalf of Dr. Mithun Paul, it was expostulated that vide letter dated
22.02.2021, the Director of Higher Education had intimated the Principal of the
College that Dr. Sarwar Jahan had relied on an OBC certificate from the State of
West Bengal certifying him to be belonging to "Khotta" Muslim community,
which ordinarily is treated as a General category in the State of Assam and that
Page No.# 9/15
his case ought to be rejected and the post be re-advertised. This communication
was responded to by the Principal of the college on 22.03.2021 stating that Dr.
Sarwar Jahan had later submitted his OBC certificate issued by the Government
of Assam and, therefore, he be treated as an OBC candidate from Assam.
18. It was strongly canvassed on behalf of Dr. Mithun Paul that appellant/Dr.
Sarwar Jahan claimed to be belonging to two different castes by virtue of caste
certificates/notifications issued by the two different States simultaneously, which
only smacks of either of the caste certificates/notifications to be a procured
certificate, not worthy of reliance. Admittedly, the notification issued in favour of
Dr. Sarwar Jahan by the Government of West Bengal was submitted by him
before the last date of submission of form. The notification issued by the State
of Assam was submitted later, which could not have been considered for
treating his case as fulfilling the eligibility requirement with respect to the post
reserved for OBC category in the State of Assam.
19. The learned Single Judge rejected the contentions raised on behalf of Dr.
Sarwar Jahan and held that an individual cannot have two different castes and
equity will not permit him to have an option to produce any of the certificates at
his convenience, especially when Dr. Jahan had never denied the correctness of
the OBC certificate issued by the State of West Bengal; rather, he had tried to
explain that his parents were from Assam and West Bengal, which explanation
was not found to be convincing at all.
20. Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge was of
the view that the issue of late submission of certificate of eligibility regarding
reservation was not required to be delved into since there was apparently
serious inconsistency with respect to the declaration of the caste of the Dr.
Page No.# 10/15
Sarwar Jahan and he cannot be stated to have requisite eligibility of caste for
his case to be considered against a post reserved for OBC/MOBC category.
21. While concluding, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent
authorities to take steps for filling up the post by fresh process as per law,
which observation is being countenanced by the learned counsel for Dr. Mithun
Paul (appellant in WA 407/2023), who has submitted that he ought to get the
fruits of the long drawn litigation that he contested and that had Dr. Sarwar
Jahan not been appointed wrongly, the post would have gone to him.
22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
23. A Caste Certificate is ordinarily valid only in the State where it is issued,
since recognition of a caste as SC/ST/OBC/MOBC is State-specific under Article
341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. A caste/tribe may be recognised as
SC/ST/OBC/MOBC in one State, but not in another State. A caste certificate
issued to an individual by one State does not automatically confer the same
status to that individual in another State, unless the caste/tribe is also
recognised there.
24. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College
and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130, a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe in
Andhra Pradesh had migrated to Maharashtra and had claimed reservation there
as a Scheduled Tribe. It was held by the Supreme Court that he could not have
claimed any reservation in Maharashtra unless his tribe was recognised as
Scheduled Tribe also in Maharashtra as well.
25. Similarly, in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and
Page No.# 11/15
Another vs. Union of India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 , the Supreme
Court reiterated that a person, who is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the
State of Andhra Pradesh cannot automatically claim the same status in another
State where he migrates unless his caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste.
26. The issue was set at rest in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and Others,
(2018) 10 SCC 312, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the benefit
of reservation in the matter of employment or education, allowed to the
SCs/STs/OBCs in a particular State, cannot be allowed in any other State upon
migration.
27. In all the cases, the Court reaffirmed the State-specific nature of
caste/tribe recognition.
28. The appellant/Dr. Sarwar Jahan has two caste certificates in his
possession; one which was submitted before the last date of submission of
application, whereas the other, i.e. one issued by the State of Assam was
deposited later. The certificates declared him to be belonging to two different
castes, which is neither possible nor permissible.
29. We, for the present, are not going into the question of genuineness of
either of the certificates, but once it is known that a person claiming reservation
has been declared to be belonging to two different castes in two different
States, it would be very difficult to rely on any one of them, especially when
such a person has applied as an unreserved category candidate at some other
place in the State of Assam.
30. With respect to the submission of the eligibility/caste certificate after the
last date, the issue has been decided differently in different fact situations.
Page No.# 12/15
31. In Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection,
(2016) 4 SCC 754, the candidate had applied under OBC category, who had
submitted the caste certificate after the last date. It was held by the Supreme
Court that if the candidate belonged to OBC category on the cut-off date, mere
late submission of the certificate cannot deprive him of his right. A caste
certificate is only a proof of status. If the status existed on the cut-off date, the
benefit derived therefrom cannot be denied merely for late submission of the
caste certificate.
32. In Ms. Pushpa vs. Government, NCT of Delhi & Ors, (2009) 9 SCC 42 ,
the candidate had produced OBC certificate after the last date. It was held by
the Supreme Court that if the candidate belonged to OBC on the relevant date
and the Rules expressly did not prohibit late submission, the benefit should not
have been denied.
33. Similarly, in Charles K. Skaria and Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and
Others, (198) 2 SCC 752 (though relating to marks/qualification certificates),
the Supreme Court had observed that what is crucial is the eligibility on the last
date and not the date of submission of the proof of eligibility.
34. However, the consistent view of the Supreme Court is that all documents
pertaining to eligibility of a candidate must be submitted before the prescribed
date given in the advertisement. [Reference: Bedanga Talukdar vs.
Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 85 and Rekha Chaturvedi vs.
University of Rajasthan and Others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 ]
35. In these cases, the issue under consideration was whether the required
qualifications of the candidates ought to be examined with reference to the date
Page No.# 13/15
of selection or with reference to the last date for making application. In this
context, it was held that the date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the
absence of knowledge of such date, the candidates who apply for the posts
would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or
not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement
mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be
judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be
possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in
praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date
may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz. even those candidates who do not
have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an
uncertain future date, may apply for the posts, thus swelling the number of
applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open
a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be fixed or manipulated as
to entertain some applicants and reject others arbitrarily. It was further held
that in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification
inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should
be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the
last date for making the applications.
36. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others vs. Chander Shekhar &
Another, (1997) 4 SCC 18, it has been held that the crucial date is the last date
of submission of applications when the eligibility of the candidates are to be
judged.
37. However, after noticing these judgments, we are of the view that this
question no longer remains relevant in the case of Dr. Sarwar Jahan (appellant
Page No.# 14/15
in WA 402/2023) for the reasons that his caste certificate issued by the State of
Assam is shrouded in doubt and controversy. His possession of two different
caste certificates issued by two different States certifying him to be belonging to
two different castes, makes his claim of his belonging to reserved category very
doubtful. The certificate issued by the State of Assam holding the
appellant/Sarwar Jahan (appellant in WA 402/2023) to be of "Jolha" community,
which falls under OBC category in Assam, thus, could not have been relied upon
by the respondents in appointing him as Assistant Professor in the college in
question.
38. To that extent, the judgment impugned cannot be faulted with.
39. However, considering that this litigation is with respect to an
advertisement published in the year 2020 and till date, no separate process has
been initiated afresh for filling up the post in question, it would be more
desirable to direct the respondents to carefully scrutinise the suitability of the
appellant/Dr. Mithun Paul (appellant in WA 407/2023), who otherwise would
have been appointed, had Dr. Sarwar Jahan (appellant in WA 402/2023) not
been wrongly appointed to the post, and give appointment to him if he fulfils all
other criteria/conditions.
40. That appellant/Dr. Mithun Paul would have lost out on age is also one of
the considerations for not giving our approval to the directions given to the
respondents in the impugned judgment to fill up that post by a fresh process of
advertisement and selection, which otherwise would also be time consuming
and would negate the fruits of the litigation seriously contested by the Dr.
Mithun Paul.
Page No.# 15/15
41. True it is that in review jurisdiction, the writ petition [WP(C) 4660/2021]
ought not to have been disposed off by order dated 08.09.2023 after the same
had been revived by virtue of an interim order dated 22.11.2022 passed in WA
No. 110/2022, but considering the afore-noted facts, we do not wish to address
that issue presently. Needless to state that WA No.110/2022 now stands
disposed off.
42. Thus, WA No. 402/2023 preferred by Dr. Sarwar Jahan is dismissed.
43. WA No. 407/2023 preferred by Dr. Mithun Paul is allowed to the extent
that it would now not be necessary for the respondents to fill up the post of
Assistant Professor in the Department of Education in Pandit Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya Government Model College, Hailakandi, by resorting to a fresh
process of recruitment. After a thorough scrutiny of the candidature of the
appellant/Dr. Mithun Paul (appellant in WA 407/2023), he may be considered for
appointment on that post.
44. We, thus, order accordingly.
45. Both the writ appeals stand disposed off.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
