[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Dr. Gangadhar Giri vs The State Of Bihar on 10 February, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4414 of 2024
======================================================
Dr. Gangadhar Giri son of Paras Nath Giri, resident of Mashrak, Purab Tola,
Mashrak, P.O. and P.S.-Mashrak, District-Chapra at Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19, Harding Rd, Rajbansi Nagar,
Patna, Bihar 800001.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19, Harding Rd,
Rajbansi Nagar, Patna, Bihar 800001.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19, Harding Rd,
Rajbansi Nagar, Patna, Bihar 800001.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19, Harding
Rd, Rajbansi Nagar, Patna, Bihar 800001.
7. Laxmi Narayan Kumar, son of Ram Brichh Chaudhary, through Bihar
Technical Service Commission bearing registration No.
BR00150220002062.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mohit Shriwastwa, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prasad (AC to AAG-4)
For the BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar
Technical Service Commission.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
"I. To issue an appropriate writ,
order, direction in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
2/17
mandamus commanding the
respondent Bihar Technical Service
Commission to treat the petitioner's
candidature in the category of
Backward Class of "Goswami/Gosai"
instead of General Category
Candidate against advertisement no.
4/2020 to 09/2020 dated 28.09.2020
for the post of Ayurvedic Medical
Officer.
II. To issue an appropriate writ,
order, direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the
respondents to amend / revise the
result bearing no. 462 dated
21.02.2024
to the extent of including
the name of the petitioner under the
Backward Class Category and
consequent removal of the last
meritorious candidate under the
Backward Class Category, if
required, for the post of Ayurvedic
Medical Officer.
III. To issue an appropriate writ,
order, direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the
respondents to appoint the petitioner
on the post of Ayurvedic Medical
Officer on the basis of marks
obtained by the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
eligible for the under the Backward
Class Category.
IV. To issue an appropriate writ,
order, direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the
respondents to keep one post vacant
under Backward Class Category
against the post of Ayurvedic
Medical Officer.
V. To any other reliefs for which the
petitioner appears to be found
entitled by the Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Ayurvedic
Medical Officer on contractual basis and he was appointed vide
Memo No. 392 dated 29.05.2015 in the office of District Health
Society, Supaul and presently posted at Referral Hospital,
Raghopur Block, Supaul. Senior counsel submits that the Bihar
Technical Service Commission published an advertisement
bearing no.4/2020 to 9/2020 dated 28.09.2020 for appointment
for different posts including Ayurvedic Medical Officer (serial
no.1 of the advertisement). In the said advertisement, the
guidelines in relation to reservation were stipulated in Para 5.
The last date for submission of online application form was
specified as 28.10.2020. Senior counsel submits that an
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
experience certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by
the concerned civil surgeon. He further submits that in pursuant
to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied against the post
of Ayurvedic Medical Officer by way of an online application
form on 17.10.2020. In the said application form, due to mistake
under the reservation category, instead of selecting Backward
Class (BC) category, Extremely Backward Class (EBC)
category was selected. However, being from the BC category,
the non-creamy layer certificate of BC category was enclosed.
Senior counsel submits that the respondent Commission
published the notice on 01.02.2022, by which the guidelines for
conducting counseling was issued along with the list of
candidates who were called for counseling by the Commission
in terms of the application form. The petitioner's name was
figured at Serial no.568. He further submits that point no.6 of
the guidelines mentioned that the Commission was free to take a
decision on the candidatures where the instruction has not been
followed by the candidates. Similarly, point no.14 of the
guidelines specifies that any information published by the
Commission on its website will be followed by the candidates
and no separate information would be given to the candidates.
Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner appeared on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
09.02.2022 before the Commission along with all the documents
and participated in the counseling. Further, during the
counseling, no objection of any kind was raised by the
Commission regarding the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent
Commission published the final merit list vide Letter No. 462
dated 21.02.2024, in which the petitioner was not declared as a
successful candidate, in-spite of the fact that the petitioner
secured 62.0486 marks which is more than the cut-off marks of
BC category fixed by the Commission as 57.6727. It is also
evident that the candidature of the petitioner was considered
under the general category by the respondent Commission in
place of BC category. Senior counsel submits that the action of
the respondent Commission is completely arbitrary and illegal
and the petitioner had furnished all the details and clarified the
fact that by mistake in place of BC category, he had applied
under EBC category, and the said mistake was not permitted to
be rectified. It is due to this reason, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that it is true that Clause 5(iv) of the advertisement
states that upon being satisfied that the candidate belongs to
which category, the form has to be fulfilled and if it is found that
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
any defect is there, then the claim of reservation shall not be
accepted. Senior counsel submits in this regard that the
application form contains the application and the certificate. He
submits that the certificate attached with the application form
was of BC category, but due to inadvertent mistake, the clicking
made at the time of filing of the application form has been
indicated as EBC category. Senior counsel specifically submits
that changing of category is not permissible according to the
clause 5(iv) of the advertisement. But, he submits that it is not
the change of category, rather, it is a mistake. He submits that
clause 5 of the advertisement shall not apply in the present case.
In support of his argument, Senior counsel submits that the said
post on which the petitioner has applied, are still vacant and
according to him, about 300 posts are still there. So, by virtue of
allowing the present writ application and directing the
respondent Commission to remove this mistake, no violation of
any terms of the advertisement shall be made.
5. In support of his argument, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in case of
Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785. He submits that as per the said
judgment, it has been categorically acknowledged by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the mistake which has been taken
place in the date of birth which has been wrongly typed as
08.12.1997 instead of 18.12.1997 in the educational certificate,
shall neither be treated as any material discrepancy nor any
suppression or misrepresentation. After a candidate has
participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages
successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled after careful
scrutiny of gravity of lapse and not for trivial omissions or
errors. He submits that here in the present case also, the
certificate attached is basically the correct certificate of the BC
category. But, only in the application form, in place of BC
category, EBC category has been clicked/selected and therefore,
he submits that such mistake may be taken as a trivial omission
or error, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the said judgment.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Bihar
Technical Service Commission, on the other hand, submits that
the appointment has to be made following the advertisement.
Counsel submits that the advertisement, particularly it's Clause
5(iv), 5(viii) and 14 clearly indicates that if, there shall be any
wrong either in the application form or in the certificate, shall
not be ignored and the candidate himself shall be responsible for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
such incorrect information. He submits that in the application
form, petitioner has filled up EBC category and subsequently in
the writ petition he is demanding relief by virtue of BC
category, meaning thereby that, he wants to change the category
of reservation, whether by mistake or intentional, and the
advertisement has basically restricted in this regard not only at
one place, rather, at three places.
7. In support of his argument, learned counsel for
Bihar Technical Service Commission relied on the judgment of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of
Chandni Kumari Vs. The Bihar Technical Service
Commission & Ors., order dated 04.08.2025 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 11355 of 2025, where the mistake taken place at the time of
filing of application form online that, in place of EBC category,
the same was filled up as BC category. And, in the said case, no
modification/correction was allowed and the petitioner has been
treated as general category. In the said case, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Hon'ble Court quoted Clause 14 of the
advertisement and made observation in para 8 of the said
judgment and dismissed the said writ petition itself.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Bihar Technical
Service Commission relied on another judgment rendered by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bedanga Talukdar
Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85,
wherein, it was held that the selection process has to be
conducted strictly in accordance with stipulated selection
procedure when a particular schedule is mentioned in the
advertisement, the same has to be followed strictly and there
cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the
advertisement unless such a power is specified/reserved.
Counsel further submits that the process of selection has already
been ended and the name of selected candidates has already
been referred to the government and the selected candidates
have joined their post. He submits that there were not a single
person who has committed such mistake, rather, a series of
candidates have committed such mistake. And if, this case shall
be construe liberally, the demand of equal opportunity has to be
applied and in this way, an adverse situation shall be created.
Counsel, therefore, submits that since, the case of the petitioner
has to be followed strictly in accordance with the advertisement,
as such, there is no scope for the petitioner in the light of the
advertisement as well as in the light of the judgments rendered
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court as well as by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India mentioned above.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
9. In the light of the submissions made and after
hearing the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Bihar Technical Service Commission as well as
considering the documents, it transpires to this Court that for the
purpose of deciding this case, it is necessary to quote the
relevant provisions which alleged to have been violated i.e.
Clause 5(iv), 5(viii) and 14 of the advertisement which reads as
under:-
"5(iv). आरककत कोकट के उममीदवार
viuh जाकत के vuq#i vkj{k.k ds lacaèk
मे iw.kZ रप से सं तुषट होने के पशचात् ही
आरकण का अं कण आवे दन के सं बंकधत
कॉलम मे करे गे एवं आवे दन HkjRks समय
उनके पास आरकण कोकट के अनु रप
सकम Ákfèkdkj से कनगरत Áek.k&i=
उपलबध होना अकनवायर होगा। ककसी
Ádkj की =qfV होने पर आरकण का दावा
मानय नहीं होगा।
5(viii). सामानय Á"kklu कवभाग के
जापांक-16144, कदनांक 28.11.2012 के
आलोक मे कनयु ककत ÁfØ;k के बीच
आरकण कोकट मे सु धार/बदलाव नहीं
ककया जा सकता है ।
14. आवे दक दारा ऑनलाईन आवे दन मे
सभी Áfof"V;k¡ सावधानी से भरी जाये गी।
भकवषय मे आवे दन मे ककसी Ádkj का
पकरवतरन / सु धार मानय नहीं होगा। ककसी
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
भी Ádkj की =qfV हे तु आयोग उतरदायी
नहीं होगा एवं कोई भी प्रकतकू ल पकरणाम
हे तु आवे दक सवयं कजममे वार होगे ।"
10. From the records and arguments, it is also
crystal clear that at the time of filing up the application form,
the petitioner has applied/selected his category under EBC, due
to which his result could not be published and he has been
treated as general category in-spite of fact that he has got more
marks than the cut-off fixed towards his category. On the other
hand, it is also true that he has filed up the application form
under EBC category but, attached/uploaded the form under BC
category, which is correct as per the argument of learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner.
11. Now, the question is that if the judgments of
Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), Chandni Kumari (supra) and
Bedanga Talukdar (supra) shall help the petitioner in any
manner or not.
11.1. The case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra)
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is relating to
wrong entry made in the date of birth as 08.12.1997 instead of
18.12.1997, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to
observed that such mistake in the application form with regard
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
to date of birth is basically a trivial omission or error, therefore,
may be ratified.
11.2. But, in case of Chandni Kumari (supra), the
entry made in the application form has been made as BC
category in place of EBC category and the Clause 14 of the
advertisement is very categorical that all the entries in the online
application form shall be made with due precaution and in
future, any change shall not be accepted, and for the effect of
such wrong, it is the candidate who shall be held responsible
and not the respondent Commission.
11.3. Similarly, in case of Bedanga Talukdar
(supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in
accordance with the stipulated selection procedure when a
particular schedule is mentioned in the advertisement, the same
has to be scrupulously maintained and there cannot be any
relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless
such a power is specifically reserved. And such a power could
be reserved in the relevant statutory rule.
12. It is relevant to quote para 29 of Bedanga
Talukdar (supra) case which reads as under:-
"We have considered the entire
matter in detail. In our opinion, it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
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."
13. It is also relevant to quote para 8, 9 & 12 of
Chandni Kumari (supra) case which reads as under:-
"8. On careful consideration of the
submissions advanced at the Bar by
the learned Advocate for the
respective parties, it is pertinent to
observe that the terms of
advertisement underlying therein
mandatorily required to be followed,
unless there is a provision of
relaxation for the same. Clause 5 of
the Advertisement No. 7/2022 deals
with reservation and note (c) thereof
makes it clear that before making
claim of reservation, a candidate
must get satisfied. Once the
registration shall be made in terms
with the advertisement, no
modification/correction shall be
allowed and in case of any mistake,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
the claim of reservation shall not be
admissible and thus the candidate
shall be treated as an unreserved
candidate. The identical prescription
has been provided under Clause 14 of
the Advertisement, which reads
hereunder:
"14- vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa lHkh
izfof"V;k¡ lko/kkuh ls Hkjh tk;sxhA Hkfo"; esa
vkosnu esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu@lq/kkj
ekU; ugh gksxkA fdlh Hkh izdkj dh =qfV gsrq
vk;ksx mRrjnk;h ugha gksxk ,oa dksbZ Hkh
izfrdqy ifj.kke gsrq vkosnd Lo;a ftEesokj
gksaxsA"
9. Further the important letter no.
612 dated 03.03.2023 made it clear
that scrutiny of all the Online
applications was made in terms with
the conditions of the advertisement
and before scrutiny a category-wise
merit list was prepared based upon
the claim of the candidates in their
applications. The said letter
specifically cautioned that a
candidate before filing objection must
understand the following directions,
inter alia, that the candidate, who
failed to produce the relevant
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
certificate, as claimed in her
application submitted through
Online, she would not get the benefit
of reservation. The letter specifically
qualified under Clause 8 thereof that
the request for change of category
shall not be entertained on account of
the reasons enumerated therein. The
important notice in the opinion of this
Court clearly excludes consideration
of any objection regarding change of
the category.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the
terms and conditions of any
advertisement are meant to be strictly
followed by all the concerns, any
deviation thereof may lead to
consequences as mentioned therein.
In the case in hand, it is made clear
through the specific prescription of
the advertisement and the important
notice that besides some trifling
errors, the candidate(s) would not be
allowed to change the category and
other remaining errors once Online
application is duly submitted. There
was a clear stipulation that benefit of
reservation would not be extended to
the candidate, in case of
unavailability of certificate(s) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4414 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
category claimed for in the Online
application."
14. Upon the basis of the discussions made, it
transpires to this Court that the petitioner has not filled up his
application form in the light of advertisement and granting
relaxation to the petitioner in the present case shall definitely
create a problem in future, as, such type of mistake shall open a
Pandora box for the Commission and a fresh litigation will be
started.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the
application of the petitioner was not filled up as per Clause
5(iv), 5(viii) and 14 of the advertisement and in the light of
judgments rendered in case of Chandni Kumari (supra) &
Bedanga Talukdar (supra) mentioned above, such change shall
not be permissible. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
