Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 530 of 2024
------
Pawan Oraon, Aged about - 33 years, Son of Late Sukar Oraon, Resident
of village - Tangar, P.O. - Tangar, P.S. - Chanho, District - Ranchi
(Jharkhand) ... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Circular
Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Circular Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate
: Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
------
03/Dated: 9th June, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. This appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal directed
against the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Single
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
Judge of this Court in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 330 of 2023,
whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by
decline to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petition with
respect to rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by the
respondent commission in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services
Competitive Examination - 2021 as a candidate of the reserved
category (Scheduled Tribe).
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the petition
needs to be refer herein which reads as under:
The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi had
published an online advertisement bearing No. 01/2021 (Jharkhand
Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination - 2021) on
08.02.2021 and had invited application from the eligible candidates
for different posts.
The appellant-petitioner, being eligible candidate, submitted his
application form online on 02.04.2021 for Preliminary Examination.
The Preliminary Examination was held on 19.09.2021 for which
Admit Card was issued to the appellant-petitioner bearing Roll No.
52317947.
The appellant-petitioner had appeared in the Preliminary
Examination and the result of the same was declared and revised on
01.11.2021 and 17.02.2022, respectively. The appellant-petitioner
was declared successful among the Scheduled Tribe candidates.
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner has submitted his application
form online for Mains Examination on 13.12.2021 for which the
admit card was issued to the appellant-petitioner.
The result of the aforesaid Mains Examination was declared on
30.04.2022 wherein the appellant-petitioner was declared
successful in the examination.
After that an e-call letter was issued by the JPSC in which the
appellant-petitioner was directed to appear for Document
Verification and for Interview and the same was completed by JPSC.
The final result was published on 31.05.2022 in which the name of
the appellant-petitioner did not find place among the successful
candidates.
After 7 months of declaration of final result, the marks sheet of the
appellant-petitioner was uploaded by JPSC from which it appears
that the appellant-petitioner has secured Grand Total (Written +
Interview) 577 Marks and in the explanation column of the same, it
has been mentioned that "Candidate Got benefit of ST Category in
P.T. and Main (Written) result, while Caste Certificate uploaded for
appointment to post under Govt. of India."
On the same date, the JPSC disclosed and uploaded service wise cut-
off marks and it appears that the ST candidate who has secured 577
marks has been declared successful and has been given Jharkhand
Administrative Service.
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
When the appellant-petitioner came to know about the cut-off marks
and the marks obtained by him, he gave a representation on
09.01.2023 before the Controller of Examination, JPSC, Ranchi
clarifying that he had uploaded Caste Certificate bearing No.
JHSTH/2020/03035 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
which was prepared on the basis of the Caste Certificate bearing No.
JHCST/2019/83540 issued by the Circle Officer, Chanho, Ranchi and
had requested him to consider his case as ST candidate and place his
name at proper place of the final selection list.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant-petitioner has
applied as a candidate in the selection process pursuance to the
advertisement bearing No. 01 of 2021 published by the JPSC, Ranchi.
He had appeared in the Preliminary Examination, based upon the
caste certificate showing him as a candidate of ST category. The said
certificate was with the caption head - "Certificate to be issued to
persons belonging to a scheduled tribe applying for appointment to
the posts/admission to the Central Educational Institution (C.E.I.s)
under the Government of India". The petitioner however had been
allowed to participate in the Preliminary examination, in which, he
has been declared to be successful. The writ petitioner thereafter had
participated in the Written Examination in which also he has been
declared to be successful. The petitioner thereafter was called for
Document Verification and Interview.
When the Final Result was published, the name of the appellant-
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
petitioner was not placed among the successful candidates.
4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same has approached
this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 330 of 2023
praying therein that he although has scored 577 marks in written
examination and interview, but even then, he has not been declared
successful. Although, he is a candidate belonging to the ST category
and the candidates who have secured lesser marks than the present
appellant-petitioner, they have been selected by declaring them to
successful candidates in the said competitive examination.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC has appeared and make
opposition to the prayer made by the appellant-petitioner on that
ground that the condition stipulated in the advertisement pertaining
to the instruction of submission of caste certificate was found to be
not in pursuance to due format as referred in the advertisement. As
such, the writ petitioner, at the time of finalization of the final list,
have been considered as a candidate of unreserved category basing
upon the fact that the caste certificate which has been presented by
him was only with respect to its consideration for appointment to
posts/admission to the Central Educational Institution (C.E.I.s) under
the Government of India which has not been found in pursuance to
the format as referred in the advertisement in terms of the conditions
stipulated in Clause 7 c (i) thereof.
6. The learned Single Judge has agreed with the objection agitated by
the learned counsel appearing for the JPSC and taking into
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
consideration the non-compliance of the condition stipulated in the
advertisement pertaining to submission of the caste certificate based
upon due format, as referred therein, has dismissed the writ petition
against which the present letters patent appeal has been preferred.
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant:
7. Mr. Shahid Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the appellant applied as a candidate in the selection
process pursuant to Advertisement bearing no. 01 of 2021 published
by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi and submitted
his online application on 02.04.2021 for preliminary examination.
The appellant-petitioner had uploaded his caste certificate as
contained in Annexure -13 dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Office of
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was titled as "Certificate to be
issued to persons belonging to a scheduled tribe applying for
appointment to the posts/admission to the Central Educational
Institution (C.E.I.s) under the Government of India". The appellant-
petitioner participated in the preliminary examination and was
declared successful.
8. The appellant-petitioner applied online for the main-examination,
uploaded the aforesaid caste certificate and participated in the
examination and was declared successful in the main examination on
30.04.2022 and was called for document verification and interview
which was done on 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 respectively.
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
However, when the final result was published on 31.05.2022, the
name of the appellant-petitioner did not find place amongst the
successful candidates and ultimately when the marks of the
appellant-petitioner were uploaded it was found that the appellant-
petitioner had obtained total marks i.e. 577 in the written and
interview.
9. The appellant-petitioner was informed that the candidature of the
appellant-petitioner under scheduled tribe category was rejected on
account of violation of Clause - 7 (i) of advertisement "Explanation:
Candidate got benefit of S.T. category in P.T. and Main (written) result,
while caste certificate uploaded for appointment to post under Govt.
of India".
10. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that he had filed a
representation on 09.01.2023 before the Controller of Examination
JPSC, Ranchi, clarifying that he had uploaded caste certificate dated
04.03.2020 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which in turn
was prepared on the basis of caste certificate dated 09.11.2019
issued by the Circle Officer, Ranchi and had requested that the caste
certificate dated 04.03.2020 be considered.
11. It is further case of the appellant-petitioner that on the date of
uploading, he had the caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 as well as
the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 and he tried to upload both the
caste certificates but the software did not allow it and, therefore, he
submitted the caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
dated 04.03.2020 which was issued by the higher authority between
the two. It is his case that there is no violation of Clause -7 (c)(i) of
the Advertisement No. 01 of 2021 and at the time of document
verification, he had shown both the caste certificates and no
objection was raised by JPSC regarding his caste certificate.
12. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that the reference of caste
certificate dated 09.11.2019 (Annexure - 14) which is titled as "Caste
Certificate to be issued to the person belonging to Scheduled Caste
applying for appointment to the post / admission under the
Government of Jharkhand" finds its reference in the subsequent caste
certificate dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The
case is that the appellant-petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe
cannot be denied reservation on flimsy or technical ground.
13. In order to fortify this limb of argument the learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi
Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board & Anr." reported in AIR
2016 SC 1098 and in particular he has referred to paragraph - 14 of
the said judgment to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the candidature of the candidates who belong to reserved
categories cannot be rejected simply on account of late submission of
caste certificate.
14. Based upon the aforesaid premise, it has been submitted that order
impugned required interference of this Hon'ble Court.
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for JPSC:
15. Learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC opposed the prayer of the
appellant-petitioner and has submitted that the appellant-petitioner
is bound by the terms of the advertisement and neither the terms of
the advertisement is challenged, nor the rules governing the selection
process has been challenged by the appellant-petitioner.
16. He has referred to the Rules which has been annexed by the
respondent-State in their counter affidavit and has submitted that as
per the Rules, the caste certificate has to be submitted in the
prescribed format. He further submits that the prescribed format is
referrable to the notification issued by the State Government dated
25.02.2019 which has been referred to in the Clause 7(a) and 7(c)(i)
of the advertisement.
17. He submits that the required format in which the caste certificate
was to be submitted is in Form - IV and admittedly the appellant-
petitioner did not upload or produce the caste certificate in Form - IV.
He has also submitted the contents of caste certificate in Form - IV
and that of the central format which the appellant-petitioner had
uploaded i.e. caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 are not one and the
same and otherwise also the appellant-petitioner having violated the
terms of the advertisement is not entitled to any relief.
18. He has further submitted that the appellant-petitioner admittedly did
not upload the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 which was the
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
appropriate certificate issued by the State Government for the
reasons best known to him. He submits that the uploading of the
caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 was not in terms of the
advertisement.
19. Learned counsel has further submitted that any deviation from terms
of advertisement has a serious bearing in as much as there could be
many such candidates who may be in possession of the caste
certificate which the appellant-petitioner possessed but they might
not have participated in absence of the requisite caste certificate in
form - IV and, therefore, any relief if granted to the appellant-
petitioner will be violative of Article - 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
20. He 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 vs. Union of
India) and has in particular referred to paragraph nos. 51 to 56 of the
said judgment.
21. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this
Court in the case of "Raj Kumar Mahto vs. State of Jharkhand"
reported in 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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
permitted to be produced at a later date.
22. 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 judgement.
23. 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.
24. Learned counsel submits that the appellant-petitioner was in
possession of the caste certificate, but the same was never uploaded.
Therefore, the subsequent production of the said caste certificate, if
any, cannot be accepted.
25. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the JPSC,
has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court passed in L.P.A.
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
No. 610 of 2019 titled as Mithlesh Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand
and Ors.
26. Further, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Kumar V. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125.
27. On the aforesaid ground the learned counsel had submitted that the
learned single judge has taken in to consideration the aforesaid facts,
as such the impugned order requires no interference.
Analysis
28. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment.
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?"
30. But before considering the aforesaid issue, the factual aspect which is
not in dispute in the present case needs to be refer herein.
31. Admittedly petitioner at the time of online application has not
brought on record the caste certificate in terms to the condition
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
stipulated under Clause 7(a) and Clause 7(c)(i) of the said
advertisement. The condition stipulated under Clause 7(a) therefore
needs to refer herein which reads as under:
"7. आरक्षण का लाभ :-
(a) आरक्षण का लाभ केवल झारखण्ड राज्य के स्थायी निवासी को (राज्य सरकार के
पत्ाां क-1754 नििाां क-25.02.2019 के अिुसार) झारखण्ड राज्य के सक्षम प्रानिकार यथा
निला िां डानिकारी / अपर िां डानिकारी /उपायुक्त / अपर उपायुक्त / अपर समाहर्ाा /
प्रथम श्रेणी िां डानिकारी / अिुमांडल िां डानिकारी/कायापालक िां डानिकारी/सहायक
समाहर्ाा एवां सहायक िां डानिकारी /अांचल अनिकारी में से नकसी एक पिानिकारी द्वारा
निर्ार् िानर् प्रमाण पत् के आिार पर ही िे य होर्ा।
32. It is evident from the aforesaid condition that the due format has
been provided for the purpose of furnishing the caste certificate in
order to get benefit of reservation as per the policy decision of the
State Government which has been considered to be mandatory in
view of the condition stipulated in the advertisement itself that no
benefit of reservation will be granted if the caste certificate is not
being submitted based upon the criterion as provided in the terms
and conditions of the advertisement as would be evident from
Condition No. 7(c)(i) which has been referred herein:
7(c)(i) अिुसूनचर् िििानर् / अिुसूनचर् िानर् :-
झारखण्ड राज्य के अिुसूनचर् िििानर् एवां अिुसूनचर् िानर् के उम्मीिवारोां को आरक्षण
का लाभ कानमाक, प्रशासनिक सु िार र्था रािभाषा नवभार्, झारखण्ड के पररपत् सांख्या-
1764 नििाां क- 25.02.2019 द्वारा नििाा ररर् नवनहर् प्रपत्-IV में झारखण्ड राज्य के सक्षम
प्रानिकार द्वारा निर्ार् िानर् प्रमाण पत् के आिार पर ही िे य होर्ा। सांबांनिर् पररपत् एवां
नवनहर् प्रपत् आयोर् के वेबसाईट www.jpsc.gov.in पर उपलब्ध है ।"
33. After going through the aforesaid clause of the advertisement this
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
Court has considered view that consequence has been provided in
non-compliance of the said condition as stipulated in the
advertisement therefore, the said condition is considered to be
mandatory.
34. Further, the law is well settled that if any condition is there showing
the consequence in adverse then such condition will be said to be
mandatory, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dalchand Vrs.,
Municipal Corporation, Bhopal & Anr., reported in (1984) 2 SCC
486, wherein, it has been held as under:
".... .... ....There are no ready tests or invariable formulae to determine
whether a provision is mandatory or directory. The broad purpose of
the statute is important. The object of the particular provision must be
considered. The link between the two is most important. The weighing
of the consequence of holding a provision to be mandatory or directory
is vital and, more often than not, determinative of the very question
whether the provision is mandatory or directory. Where the design of
the statute is the avoidance or prevention of public mischief, but the
enforcement of a particular provision literally to its letter will tend to
defeat that design, the provision must be held to be directory, so that
proof of prejudice in addition to non-compliance of the provision is
necessary to invalidate the act complained of. It is well to remember
that quite often many rules, though couched in language which appears
to be imperative, are no more than mere instructions to those entrusted
with the task of discharging statutory duties for public benefit. The
negligence of those to whom public duties are entrusted cannot by
statutory interpretation be allowed to promote public mischief and
cause public inconvenience and defeat the main object of the statute. It
is as well to realise that every prescription of a period within which an
act must be done, is not the prescription of a period of limitation with
painful consequences if the act is not done within that period. Rule 9(j)
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as it then stood, merely
instructed the Food Inspector to send by registered post copy of the
Public Analyst's report to the person from whom the sample was taken
within 10 days of the receipt of the report. Quite obviously the period of
10 days was not a period of limitation within which an action was to be
initiated or on the expiry of which a vested right accrued. The period of
10 days was prescribed with a view to expedition and with the object of
giving sufficient time to the person from whom the sample was taken to
make such arrangements as he might like to challenge the report of the
Public Analyst, for example, by making a request to the Magistrate to
send the other sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for
analysis. Where the effect of non-compliance with the rule was such as
to wholly deprive the right of the person to challenge the Public
Analyst's report by obtaining the report of the Director of the Central
Food Laboratory, there might be just cause for complaint, as prejudice
would then be writ large. .Where no prejudice was caused there could
be no cause for complaint. I am clearly of the view that Rule 9(j) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was directory and not
mandatory. The decisions in Public Prosecutor v. Murlidhar [1977 Cr LJ
1634 (AP) : 1977 Andh LT 34 : 1977 MLJ (Cri) 205] and Bhola Nath v.
State [1977 Cr LJ 154 (Cal) : (1977) 1 FAC 38] to the extent that they
hold that Rule 9(j) was mandatory are not good law. The petition is
dismissed.
35. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Patil Automation (P)
Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., reported in (2022) 10
SCC 1, wherein, it has been held at paragraph 34, which reads as
under:-
34. In Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India [Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of
India, AIR 1962 SC 113] , a Bench of five learned Judges dealt with the
question arising out of Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act,
1935. The Court, inter alia, had to deal with the question, whether
enactment should be considered directory or obligatory : (AIR p. 119,
para 17) "17. The question still remains whether the purchase orders
executed by the Divisional Superintendent but which were not
expressed to be made by the Governor General and were not executed
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
on behalf of the Governor-General, were binding on the Government of
India. Section 175(3) plainly requires that contracts on behalf of the
Government of India shall be executed in the form prescribed thereby;
the section however does not set out the consequences of non-
compliance. Where a statute requires that a thing shall be done in the
prescribed manner or form but does not set out the consequences of
non-compliance, the question whether the provision was mandatory or
directory has to be adjudged in the light of the intention of the
legislature as disclosed by the object, purpose and scope of the statute.
If the statute is mandatory, the thing done not in the manner or form
prescribed can have no effect or validity : if it is directory, penalty may
be incurred for non compliance, but the act or thing done is regarded as
good. As observed in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., p.
376: 'It has been said that no rule can be laid down for determining
whether the command is to be considered as a mere direction or
instruction involving no invalidating consequence in its disregard, or as
imperative, with an implied nullification for disobedience, beyond the
fundamental one that it depends on the scope and object of the
enactment. It may perhaps be found generally correct to say that
nullification is the natural and usual consequence of disobedience, but
the question is in the main governed by considerations of convenience
and justice, and when that result would involve general inconvenience
or injustice to innocent persons, or advantage to those guilty of the
neglect, without promoting the real aim and object of the enactment,
such an intention is not to be attributed to the legislature. The whole
scope and purpose of the statute under consideration must be
regarded.' Lord Campbell in Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner
[Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner, (1860) 30 LJ Ch 379 : 45 ER 715]
observed : (ER p. 718) '... No universal rule can be laid down ... as to
whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or
obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty
of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by
carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed.' "
36. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University
v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Others, reported in (2003) 2
SCC 111, wherein, at paragraph-42 and 43, it has been held as
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
under:-
"42. We are not oblivious of the law that when a public functionary is
required to do a certain thing within a specified time, the same is
ordinarily directory but it is equally well settled that when consequence
for inaction on the part of the statutory authorities within such
specified time is expressly provided, it must be held to be imperative.
43. In Sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3rd Edn., Vol. 3, at p. 102 the
law is stated as follows:
"... unless the nature of the act to be performed, or the phraseology of
the statute is such that the designation of time must be considered a
limitation of the power of the officer". At p. 107 it is pointed out that a
statutory direction to private individuals should generally be
considered as mandatory and that the rule is just the opposite to that
which obtains with respect to public officers. Again, at p. 109, it is
pointed out that often the question as to whether a mandatory or
directory construction should be given to a statutory provision may be
determined by an expression in the statute itself of the result that shall
follow noncompliance with the provision. At p. 111 it is stated as
follows:
"As a corollary of the rule outlined above, the fact that no consequences
of non-compliance are stated in the statute, has been considered as a
factor tending towards a directory construction. But this is only an
element to be considered, and is by no means conclusive."
37. This Court applying the aforesaid settled position of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the condition
stipulated under Clause 7(a) and 7(c)(i) of the said Advertisement is
of the view that the condition stipulated in Clause 7(a) and 7(c)(i) is
mandatory and if the said condition is not been complied with by not
submitting the caste certificate on the basis of the due format as
contained in the advertisement itself, then no benefit of reservation is
to be given to one or the other candidate, rather, the candidature is
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
required to be considered under the unreserved category.
38. The reference is also required to be made herein the order passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumar V.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) wherein considering the
same circular related to the non-submission of the condition
stipulated in advertisement by not submitting the caste certificate
based upon the format as contained therein, this Court has decided
the issue that due to non-submission of caste certificate in the due
format as provided in the advertisement, the candidature is not
required to be considered for the purpose of giving benefit of
reservation, the relevant part along with the factual aspect needs to
be refer herein which reads as under:
2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition which
require to be enumerated, read as hereunder:
The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, in short JSSC, had
published an advertisement being Advertisement No. 03/2014, for
conducting competitive examination for Forest Guard in the name of
Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination, 2014, whereby
online applications were invited from eligible candidates in which the
writ-petitioner had applied under EBC-1 category bearing Registration
No. 14243159 for District-Chatra and accordingly, admit card was
issued in his favour and has been allowed to appear in preliminary
examination wherein he was duly qualified. Thereafter, he was called
for appearing in Mains examination in which he had participated and
was declared successful.
It is the case of the writ-petitioner that after the Mains
examination, he was called for the physical and medical test for which
a fresh admit card was issued to him and accordingly, he came out
successful and was called for verifications of certificates. It is specific
case of the writ-petitioner that after verification of documents, a notice
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
was issued by JSSC in the website related to Jharkhand Forest Guard
Competitive Examination-2014, wherein roll number wise list of all
such candidates was published, who have not submitted their caste
certificates as per the requirement of the advertisement and as such,
they were asked to submit their caste certificate and residential
certificate latest by 15.03.2017, failing which their candidature will be
rejected or their candidature will be treated under the Unreserved
Category. However, since the roll number of the petitioner was not
appearing in the said notice, he was of the impression that caste
certificate submitted by him with the original application is
accepted/verified without any objection by the respondents.
It is also the case of the writ-petitioner that though he had
obtained much more marks than the last selected candidate in his
category but the case of the writ-petitioner was not recommended for
appointment.
Aggrieved by the same, the writ-petitioner has preferred a writ
petition being W.P.(S) No. 385 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order
dated 08.10.2018 with a direction to the writ-petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the respondent authorities taking all the points
and annexing the caste certificate of BC-I category issued prior to
15.03.2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the
said representation and the respondents were directed to consider the
same and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks. In compliance of the said order, the writ
petitioner has represented before the respondent authorities along
with sufficient, cogent and convincing documents in support of his
claim but the same was not considered and rejected vide Memo No.
7137 dated 21.12.2018 on the ground that the caste certificate
produced by the writ petitioner is not as per requirement, since the
same was issued on 10.06.2017 and not prior to 15.03.2017. The writ-
petitioner, aggrieved the said action of the respondent-authority,
approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1286
of 2019 by taking the ground of arbitrariness committed on the part of
the authority since the rejection of the claim of the writ-petitioner is
based on imaginary cutoff date, i.e., 15.03.2017 fixed by the respondent
with the entire examination was over and was not mentioned in the
original advertisement and as such, inserting the said dated, i.e.,
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
15.03.2017 by way of notice issued in the year 2017 amounts to
altering the terms of advertisement after the selection process has been
initiated, which is impressible in the eyes of law.
The writ-petitioner has also taken the ground of obtaining higher
marks than the last selected candidate in his category.
8. The undisputed fact in this case is that the one advertisement was
published by the JSSC inviting applications for appointment of Forest
Guard. The specific stipulation has been made in the advertisement as
under condition no. 7(III)(ii) that for getting the benefit of reservation
the caste certificate duly been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
the concerned district or the Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned
sub-division will only be applicable. 10. It further appears from the
condition no. 7(III)(iii) that the caste certificate for getting the benefit
of reservation for the extreme backward category Schedule-I and the
backward category Schedule-II will have to be issued in the due format
on or after 31.03.2014. ----
It further appears from a document under caption heading "Important
Notice" appended as Annexure-5, wherein, the Commission, after
finding the fact that several candidates have not submitted their caste
certificates in terms of Clause 7 (III) of the advertisement, has granted
an opportunity to such candidates to submit their caste certificates up
to 15.03.2017 making it clear that if by 15.03.2017 such caste
certificates will not be submitted, the candidature of such candidates
will be rejected
12. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the writ-
petitioner as also the case of the Commission and considering the fact
that the writ-petitioner has not produced the caste certificate in terms
of the condition stipulated under the advertisement as under condition
no. 7(III), has rightly held to be considered under the unreserved
category and as such, the writ petition has been dismissed.
17. The question of consideration of the caste certificate which was
submitted by the writ-petitioner issued prior to 15.03.2017 since was
issued by the Block Development Officer, cannot be said to be an
admissible document since this Court has already decided the issue of
consideration of such certificate issued by the incompetent authority
below the rank of Deputy Commissioner which fell for consideration in
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
L.P.A. No. 91 of 2020 disposed of on 27.10.2021 wherein this Court has
laid down by considering the condition of advertisement holding
therein that the certificate issued by the authority lower in rank is not
admissible --------
18. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has not produced the caste
certificate issued prior to 15.03.2017 by the competent authority and
now the writpetitioner is seeking relaxation to such condition for
acceptance of the caste certificate which has been issued by the Block
Development Officer of the concerned Block as an admissible
document, which according to our considered view, cannot be exceeded
to as per the finding recorded by this Court in L.P.A. No. 91 of 2020
wherein while answering the question as to whether the condition
stipulated in the advertisement, if not followed, what would be its
consequence. 19. This Court after taking into consideration the content
of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the
conclusive finding that there cannot be any deviation from the
condition stipulated in the advertisement. Relevant part of the order
passed in L.P.A. No. 91 of 2020 reads as under:
"........... The question herein is that whether the condition stipulated
in the advertisement if not been followed, what would be its
consequence. It is the settled position of Law that the condition
stipulated in the advertisement 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 Vrs. International Airport
Authority of India & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489 as also the judgment
rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Air India Ltd. Vrs. Cochin
International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617. Similar view has been
taken by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar Vrs. Saifudullah
Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85. Paragraph29 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 strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection
procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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.""
20. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect as well as the legal
position, has travelled to the impugned order wherefrom it is evident
that the learned Single Judge has considered the fact about
admissibility of the caste certificate which was issued by the
incompetent authority, i.e., Block Development Officer, as also
considered the fact that opportunity was granted to the writ-petitioner
by the co-ordinate learned Single Judge of this Court, however, since the
same was not been availed, it is not available for the writ-petitioner to
seek any relief by getting relaxation for acceptance of caste certificate
issued by the Block Development Officer of the concerned Block.
21. This Court, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as also
taking into consideration the fact in entirety, is of the view that the
appellant/writ-petitioner has failed to make out a case for interfering
with the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is
dismissed.
39. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Kumar V. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. (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 along with
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
the case facts are referred herein which reads as under:
2. Respondent no. 3/Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board3 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 2020-20214. 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. 47, by its speaking order dated 15th September 2022,
rejected Mohit's representation on the ground that he did not submit
OBC8 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 petition9,
challenging the order rejecting his 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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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.
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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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
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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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 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 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.
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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:
7(b) िानर् प्रमाण पत् की मूल प्रनर् अन्तवीक्षा के समय सत्यापि प्रनिया के िौराि प्रस्तुर्
करिा अनिवाया होर्ा अन्यथा आरक्षण का लाभ िे य िहीां होर्ा।
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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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.
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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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 and Ors.
(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 and Ors (supra) has pleased to
hold that the condition stipulated in the advertisement so
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
2025:JHHC:15863-DB
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. Hence, this Court is of the view that the view taken by learned Single
Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error.
50. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
51. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Samarth/A.F.R.
