Pawan Oraon, aged about 32 years, son of Late Sukar Oraon, resident of Village v. 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Circular Road
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 330 of 2023 Pawan Oraon, aged about 32 years, son of Late Sukar Oraon, resident of Village – Tangar, P.O. – Tangar, P.S. – Chanho, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) 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. … Respondents Dhurwa, Ranchi … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-JPSC For the State : Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG --- 10/12th June 2024 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) commanding and directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as successful candidate of Jharkhand combined Civil Services Competitive Examination – 2021 as a candidate of reserved category S.T. (Scheduled Tribes) by rectifying the final result. (ii). For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) commanding and directing the respondents to forthwith give selection/appointment letter to the petitioner for the post he has been found successful as per cut off marks of his category i.e. S.T. (Scheduled Tribe). (iii). During pendency of the instant writ petition one seat for which the petitioner is legally entitled be kept in abeyance by the respondents.” 2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent- JPSC in not extending the benefits of reservation to him under S.T category only due to submission of the caste certificate in the format meant for the appointment in services of Government of India. i.e. in Central Format which is meant for the Appointment in the 1 Services of Central Govt/ Union of India. It is alleged that the petitioner has failed to submit caste certificate of S.T Category in proforma IV as mentioned in Clause 7(c) (i) of the Advertisement no. 01/2021 upto the last date of submission of online application form. Argument of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner 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 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 petitioner participated in the preliminary examination and was declared successful. 4. The petitioner applied online for the main-examination, uploaded the aforesaid caste certificate and participated in the examination. The petitioner 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. However, when the final result was published on 31.05.2022, the name of the petitioner did not find place amongst the successful candidates and ultimately when the marks of the petitioner were uploaded it was found that the petitioner had obtained total marks i.e. 577 in the written and interview. 5. The petitioner was informed that the candidature of the 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”. 2 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner 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. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that on the date of uploading, the petitioner 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, the petitioner submitted the caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner 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(i) of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2021 and at the time of document verification the petitioner had shown both the caste certificates and no objection was raised by JPSC regarding caste certificate of the petitioner. 8. It is the case of the 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 of the petitioner is that the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe cannot be denied reservation on flimsy or technical ground. 9.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the 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 reserve categories cannot be rejected simply on account of late submission of caste certificate. However, during the course of 3 arguments, it transpired from paragraph – 8 of the said judgment that the requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before the cut-off date of the application was introduced in the said case by the respondent only while declaring the result on 15.12.2008. 10. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the year 2023 by virtue of the notification issued by the State Government, the caste certificate under Central Government and the State Government has been merged and there is a common format for issuance of caste certificate to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. He has referred to the notification issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms vide memo no. 2669 dated 10.05.2023 stating that the Government of Jharkhand has adopted the format of caste certificate of the Central Government which is titled as “Form of caste certificate to be issued to the persons belonging to a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applying for appointment to the posts / admission under the Government of India/ Government of Jharkhand.” Arguments of respondents-JPSC 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the 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 petitioner. 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 referable to the notification issued by the State Government dated 25.02.2019 which has been referred to in the Clause 7(a) and (c)(i) of the advertisement. 12. He submits that the required format in which the caste certificate was to be submitted is in Form - IV and admittedly the 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 petitioner had uploaded i.e. 4 caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 are not one and the same and otherwise also the petitioner having violated the terms of the advertisement is not entitled to any relief. He has further submitted that the petitioner admittedly did not upload the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 which was the 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. 13. 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 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 petitioner will be violative of Article – 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. 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. 15. 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 permitted to be produced at a later date. 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 petitioners and in the said case the specific plea of the 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 5 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. 16. 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. 17. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was in possession of
Decision
the caste certificate as contained in page – 70 of the writ petition, but the same was never uploaded and, therefore, the subsequent production of the said caste certificate, if any, cannot be accepted. There is no acceptable explanation from the side of the petitioner for not uploading the caste certificate contained at page – 70 of the writ petition though the said caste certificate is in the required format. Findings of this Court. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (ST) category. The respondent no. 2 had published online advertisement bearing no. 1 of 2021 on 08.02.2021 and had invited application from eligible candidates for different posts. The petitioner submitted his application form online for preliminary examination. He was issued admit card and the preliminary examination was held on 19.09.2021 and ultimately, the petitioner was declared successful amongst the Scheduled Tribe candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner filed online application form for mains examination on 13.12.2021 for which the petitioner was issued admit card and he was declared successful on 30.04.2022. The petitioner was directed to appear for document verification and for interview. 19. As per the case of the petitioner, document verification was done on 12.05.2022 and interview was taken on 13.05.2022, but in the final result published on 31.05.2022, the name of the petitioner did not find place. The marks-sheet of the petitioner was uploaded by JPSC on 04.01.2023 and the petitioner had secured grand total marks of 6 written + interview as 577 marks. In the said marks-sheet in the remarks column it was mentioned “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”. Upon declaration of the cut-off marks service-wise, it appeared that ST category candidate who had secured 577 marks was declared successful and was given Jharkhand Administrative Service. Consequently, the petitioner filed representation on 09.01.2023 clarifying that he had uploaded caste certificate bearing no. JHSTH/2020/03035 dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was prepared on the basis of caste certificate bearing no. JHCST/2021/83540 dated 09.11.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Chanho, Ranchi and the petitioner requested to consider his case as Scheduled Tribe category candidate and place his name at proper place in the final selection list. 20. Upon perusal of the representation dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure- 12) it is apparent that the petitioner had insisted that his aforesaid caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 was duly issued in terms of the circular no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 in prescribed Form-IV which was in turn issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department of the State of Jharkhand and had also asserted that the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 was also produced at the time of verification. 21. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi along with application form and the said caste certificate clearly mentioned “Certificate to be issued to persons belonging to a Scheduled Tribes applying for appointment to posts/admission to Central Educational Institutions (CEIs), under The Government of India”. At the bottom of the said caste certificate, it was also mentioned “This Certificate is issued on the basis of Certificate Reference Number JHCST/2019/83540 issued by Circle Officer, Chanho” 7 22. It is not in dispute that the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Chanho was in the prescribed format but the petitioner chose to file the caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which had a reference of caste certificate number issued by the Circle Officer. 23. In his representation, the petitioner insisted that the caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner should be accepted as valid as the same was in turn issued on the basis of the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer in terms of the circular no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 by referring to Clause 7 of the advertisement. 24. Relevant portions from Clause 7 of the advertisement involved in the present case are quoted as under: “7. आर्ቌण का लाभ :- (a) आर्ቌण का लाभ केवल झारखण्ड राज्य के स्थायी निवासी को (राज्य सरकार के पत्ाांक-1754 दििाांक-25.02.2019 के अिुसार) झारखण्ड राज्य के स्ቌम ्ቚाधिकार यथा जिला िांडाधिकारी/ अपर िांडाधिकारी /उपायुक्त/ अपर उपायुक्त/ अपर समाहताा / ्ቚथम ्ቦेणी िांडाधिकारी/ अिुमांडल िांडाधिकारी/कायापालक िांडाधिकारी/सहायक समाहቔኚाा एवां सहायक िांडाधिकारी /अांचल अधिकारी में से ककसी एक पिाधिकारी द्वारा निर्ात िानत ्ቚमाण पत् के आिार पर ही िेय होर्ा। (b) िानत ्ቚमाण पत् की मूल ्ቚनत अन्तवी्ቌा के समय सत्यापि ्ቚकिया के िौराि ्ቚस्तुत करिा अनिवाया होर्ा अन्यथा आर्ቌण का लाभ िेय िहीां होर्ा। (c) िानत ्ቚमाण पत् हेतु ववस्तृत नििेश निम्िवत् ह ैः- (i) अिुसूधचत िििानत / अिुसूधचत िानत :- झारखण्ड राज्य के अिुसूधचत िििानत एवां अिुसूधचत िानत के उम्मीिवारों को आर्ቌण का लाभ कार्माक, ्ቚशासनिक सुिार तथा रािभाषा ववभार्, झारखण्ड के पररपत् सांख्या-1764 दििाांक- 25.02.2019 द्वारा नििााररत ववदहत ्ቚपत्-IV में झारखण्ड राज्य के स्ቌम ्ቚाधिकार द्वारा निर्ात िानत ्ቚमाण पत् के आिार पर ही िेय होर्ा। सांबांधित पररपत् एवां ववदहत ्ቚपत् आयोर् के वेबसाईट www.jpsc.gov.in पर उपलब्ि ह ।” 25. From the perusal of the representation itself, it is apparent that though the petitioner was in possession of the required caste certificate 8 in terms of the advertisement which is dated 09.11.2019, but instead of producing the same, he had chosen to produce the caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 which was meant for appointment to the posts/admission to Central Educational Institutions (CEIs), under the Government of India and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected solely on account of non-production of the caste certificate in terms of the advertisement. 26. Upon perusal of the aforesaid provision of the advertisement, it is clear that under Clause -7(a) it has been mentioned that the claim of reservation was available for permanent residents of the State of Jharkhand and the caste certificate was to be issued in terms of circular no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019. Further, in terms of Clause 7(c)(i) of the advertisement, it was clearly provided that the benefit of reservation to SC/ST candidates will be available to only those who are in possession of the caste certificate issued in terms of the circular no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 in prescribed Form IV. The format etc. was indicated to be available in the website namely www.jpsc.gov.in. 27. Upon perusal of Clause 5 of the advertisement, it is clear that different age limit/relaxation of age was granted with respect to persons belonging to different categories. For Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (male and female), the upper age limit was 40 years. 28. Clause 14 of the advertisement clearly indicated that the candidature would be considered as per the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 which clearly provided that the candidates applying for examination should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions for admission to examination; their admission at all stages of examination for which they are admitted by Commission i.e. preliminary examination, main (written) examination and interview test will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility condition; if on verification at any time before or after the preliminary examination, main (written) examination or interview test, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Commission. 9 29. Under Clause 22 of the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that in case of furnishing of wrong information or if information is left out or if any information is partly furnished, then the candidate will be responsible for such error and the decision of the Commission would be final. It was also mentioned therein that the applicants should ensure that they have all the required certificates prior to filling up of the form and none of the certificate should be issued after the last date of submission of the application form. It was also mentioned therein that the applicant was required to make entries with regard to all eligibility certificates and the original of the same was also to be produced at the time of verification/interview. 30. In the present case, though the petitioner was in possession of the required certificate to claim reservation i.e. certificate dated 09.11.2019, but he submitted the certificate dated 04.03.2020 which was meant for appointment to the posts/admission to Central Educational Institutions (CEIs), under the Government of India and accordingly, the said certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was certainly not in the prescribed form as was demanded in terms of the advertisement. 31. This Court is of the considered view that merely because at the bottom of the certificate dated 04.03.2020 a reference was made to the required certificate, the same cannot absolve the petitioner from his responsibility to adhere to the terms of advertisement. If the petitioner was required to submit the certificate dated 09.11.2019 which was in terms of the advertisement, any other certificate which has a reference of the certificate dated 09.11.2019 will not suffice the purpose. 32. The petitioner has made a statement in paragraph 17 of his writ petition that at the time of filling up the form, he tried to upload both the caste certificates, but the software did not allow and the petitioner had already got uploaded the caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 04.03.2020. The statement itself indicates that the petitioner was conscious of the fact that he was under an obligation to submit the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 and after uploading the caste certificate dated 04.03.2020, tried to 10 upload the required caste certificate dated 09.11.2019. This Court finds that in spite of being conscious of such a situation the petitioner did not take any steps nor filed any representation to place his required caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 on record. 33. It is not expected from the examination authorities to refer to the caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 whose mere reference was made in the uploaded caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 in order to scrutinize the candidature of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of advertisement by uploading the caste certificate dated 04.03.2020 instead of caste certificate dated 09.11.2019 though he was in possession of both the caste certificates at the time of filling up the form and uploading the documents. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected, the reason of which has been communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-10 alleging violation of Clause 7(c)(i) of the advertisement. The reason has already been quoted as aforesaid. 34. So far as the judgment passed in the case of “Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another” (Supra) is concerned, the same does not help the petitioner in any manner in view of the fact that the requirement of submitting the caste certificate in the said case before the cut-off date was introduced only while declaring the result and in the present case, the there was a requirement to upload the caste certificate and furnish its details right at the stage of filling up the form for the Mains examination. 35. This Court is also of the considered view that subsequent notification vide memo no. 2669 dated 10.05.2023 issued by the State Government merging the caste certificate under Central Government and the State Government and issuing a common format has no bearing in the matter as the selection process in the present case started way back in the year 2021 and final result was published on 31.05.2022. 11 36. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the respondents rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 37. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Aditi/Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 12