Smt. Preeti Thalan v. The State of Jharkhand

Mr. Chandra Bhanu Pratap Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Jharkhand Public Service Commission has come out with advertisement no. 22 of 2023 for filling of posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on regular basis which was published in August, 2023 inviting application for the said posts. He submits that the petitioner has applied for local resident certificate in June, 1 2021 before the Office of Circle Officer, Bargai in the District of Ranchi on the basis of issuance of local resident certificate dated

09.11.2019 issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner which was rejected and later on local resident certificate was issued to the petitioner on 08.01.2024 contained in annexure-8. He further submits that after issuance of advertisement the petitioner submitted application online before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for consideration of her candidature for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under unreserved category vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. He further submits that last date for submission of application was 21.09.2023 however the same was extended by 06.10.2023 by the order of the Division Bench of this Court and hard copy was accepted till 20.10.2023. He further submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Chandra Bhanu Pratap who resides at Ranchi in view of that the petitioner has applied for domicile certificate from the authorities of the State of Jharkhand which was delayed in view of that she could not be able to fill up form under E.W.S category. He then submits for the fault of the the authority concerned the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer as such appropriate order may kindly be issued to change the category in the application form Geneal to E.W.S category. He further submits that in identical situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 has allowed the said prayer and relying on 2 the said judgment he submits that appropriate direction may kindly be issued to JPSC for change of domicile. He further submits that issue in question was referred by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others” in L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020 along with analogous writ petitions. He then submits that in view of reference made to the larger Bench, appropriate order may kindly be passed.

4. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission submits that the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand sent requisition before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for starting the selection process for appointment for different categories of the candidates and JPSC after receiving the aforesaid requisition started the selection process for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Jharkhand and accordingly Advertisement No. 22 of 2023 was issued by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for considering their candidature appointment against the advertised posts. He draws the attention of the Court to Clause 2 (B)(i) as well as Clause 16 of the Advertisement and submits that in view of above clauses the candidate is required to fulfil the criteria and the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria with regard to reservation as well as domicile and process is already started now present petition has been filed 3 praying for such change which cannot be allowed. He further submits that in the identical situation this Court in “Jigyasha Gupta Vs. The State of Jharkhand” in W.P.(S) No. 3500 of 2018 by order dated 18.02.2021 decided the issue in question and the same was dismissed by order dated 18.02.2021 and the said order was challenged before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 119 of 2021 and the order of the Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated 28.03.2023. He further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further dealt with the issue in the case of “Divya V. Union of India and others” (2024) 1 SCC 448. By way of referring several paragraphs of the said judgment he submits that the case of “Ram Kumar Gijroya”(supra) was considered in that case and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of distinguishing the said judgement has answered this issue. He refers to paragraph nos. 1, 11, 14, 16, 22, 27, 35, 36, 37, 40, 51, 61, 62, 63, 64 of the judgment in the case of Divya(supra) which is quoted hereinbelow: “1. These writ petitions raise questions involving the interpretation of the Office Memoranda (“OM”) dated 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 prescribing the eligibility for the Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) category. Additionally, they also involve the interpretation of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 (“CSE-2022 Rules”), particularly, Rules 13, 27 and 28 thereof. The petitioners, for diverse reasons, were denied the benefit of the EWS category by the Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) for the Civil Services Examination of the year 2022. Was UPSC justified in denying them the benefit of reservation under the EWS category, is the main question involved.

11. The applicable date for possession in this case is 22-2-2022. This is because after the promulgation of the Rules, the third respondent Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) issued the examination notice on 2- 2-2022 and the last date for submission of the application was 22-2- 2022 and the time of deadline was 6.00 p.m. on that day.

14. What is clear from the above is, before the closing date of application, the candidate has to be in possession of the requisite 4 certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 and before the Main Examination, the candidate is expected to upload the certificate.

16. For these reasons, the petitioner states that she was unable to obtain the certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 before 22-2-2022. It is also admitted by her that, by 13-12-2022, she was able to obtain the EWS certificate for Financial Year 2021-2022 but was not able to obtain the EWS certificate for 2020-2021 till 1-6-2023.

22. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition since she claims that she had secured All India Rank (“AIR”) 105 and if she were to be considered in the EWS category, her cut-off would qualify her, for admission to the CSE-2022 in the IAS cadre. In the writ petition, she has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing email dated 30-5-2023 issued by Respondent l; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to retain the petitioner in the economically weaker section (“EWS”) category and accept the EWS certificate submitted by the petitioner for Financial Year 2020-2021, for the purpose of recruitment pursuant to Civil Services Examination 2022; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring Rule 13, Rule 27(3) and Rule 28 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022, to the extent that it prescribes that candidates must be in possession of the EWS certificate as on the closing date of the application for Preliminary Examination, to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being arbitrary;”

27. It is averred that the petitioner was not the only candidate whose category was changed to general, due to non-submission of I&AC based on the income of FY 2020-2021 issued beyond the closing date i.e. 22-2- 2022. It is averred that, as many as 36 candidates, who had applied under the EWS, were not treated as EWS as they failed to upload the valid I&AC with their DAF-I. According to UPSC, out of the 36 candidates, the category of 22 candidates was changed from EWS to general as they had qualified the CSE-2022 on general standards and with regard to 14 candidates, who failed to qualify, their candidature was cancelled.

35. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once their categorisation as an EWS was not in dispute, mere inability to have the certificate as of 22-2-2022 should not operate to their prejudice. According to them, the delayed submission did not affect the category-wise allocation process at any stage and that there was no rationale for insisting on the certificate to be dated before the cut-off i.e. 22-2-2022, namely, the last day for submission of the application for Preliminary Examination. They relied on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] , Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472] (two Judges) and Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 588 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341] (three Judges), Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew [Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] , Dolly 5 Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE [Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 : 5 SCEC 475] , Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC [Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 318] , Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265] and Deepak Yadav v. UPSC [Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 809] . Additionally, and quite feebly, a contention was also raised that the CSE Rules, 2022 have no statutory flavour and are not enforceable in law.

36. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the Union of India and Mr Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for Respondent 3 UPSC, thoroughly and painstakingly countered the submissions of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the present was a case where there was a clear prescription in the form of rules. The learned counsel relied on OM dated 19-1-2019, 31-1-2019 and Rules 13, 27 and 28 of the CSE-2022 Rules to contend that eligibility is acquired as an EWS candidate only after the candidate meets the criteria issued by the Central Government and is in possession of the requisite I&AC based on the income for FY 2020-2021; that under Rule 28, the candidates should be in possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim by the closing date of the application viz. 22-2-2022; that for the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit DAF-I along with scanned documents in support within prescribed time for the same; any delay in submission of the DAF-I or documents in support beyond the prescribed date was not allowed and would lead to cancellation of the candidature.

37. The learned counsel distinguished Charles K. Skaria [Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] , Dolly Chhanda [Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 : 5 SCEC 475] and Dheerender Singh Paliwal [Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 318] by stating that in those cases the candidates, who were given relief, possessed the eligibility before the cut-off date and the issue was only about submission of proof. The learned counsel relied on Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] and UPSC v. Gaurav Singh [UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116] to reinforce their submissions and distinguished Deepak Yadav [Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 809] as having been confined to its special facts for the extraordinary Covid year. The learned counsel submitted that Ram Kumar Gijroya [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] was also clearly distinguishable and that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from it.

40. Countering the submission of the petitioners in the other two petitions, the learned counsel states that the case was squarely covered by Gaurav Singh [UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116] and if each candidate is allowed to come with clarifications/corrigenda, there will be no end to the selection process and the sanctity of the rule would completely stand negated. The learned counsel contended that any selective relaxation would cause enormous injustice to the non-applicants, who in compliance with the rule would not have applied for the reason that they did not possess the 6 eligibility certificate on the last date for submission. To reinforce the submission, reliance was placed on Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] and Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] wherein it was held that deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives, among others, who could have competed for the post. So, contending they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

51. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application. (See Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951] ; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 639] ; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 19] .)

61. The strong reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gijroya case [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] also does not impress us. Not only was there no rule, like we have in the present case, it was only while declaring the result, the requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before the cut- off date was introduced by the Selection Authority there. Moreover, unlike the present, there was no contention or issue raised in that case that eligibility enures or crystallises only on the issuance of the certificate and on possession of the certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date.

62. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya case [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] is also directly in conflict with the judgment of three Hon'ble Judges in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] wherein in para 6, it was held as under : (Chander Shekhar case [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] , SCC pp. 21-22) “6. … So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had 7 not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis.”

63. Apart from all of this, the correctness of Ram Kumar Gijroya case [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] was referred to a three- Judge Bench in Karn Singh Yadav [Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472] . A perusal of para six of the referral order clearly shows that the Bench was echoing the ratio of the three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma case [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] though there is no express reference to the said case. However, when the matter came before a three-Judge Bench, the reference was not answered and even after noticing that Ram Kumar Gijroya case [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] covered Karn Singh Yadav [Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472] (two-Judges), the Court, however, denied relief to Karn Singh Yadav, the petitioner by holding that since the appellant was never appointed to the post at that length of time it was not possible to grant any relief to the appellant. Ram Kumar Gijroya [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] is clearly distinguishable.

64. Be that as it may, we are bound by the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] and we follow the said judgment and reiterate the principle laid down therein. It is also interesting to note that even in Deepak Yadav [Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 809] , a judgment, strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the principle in Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] has been reiterated. However, because of what the Court called an abnormal and cataclysmal year, an exception was made due to the ongoing pandemic, lockdown and restrictions imposed thereof. In Alok Kumar Singh [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265] , no rules like the ones present in this case are shown to have existed. In the present case, there are clear prescriptions as to eligibility, as has been discussed hereinabove.

5. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC submits that the identical issue has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as such no relief can be extended to the petitioner. He then submits that this issue was further for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and Others” (2005) 12 SCC 8 498 in which it was held that if the certificate is not produced on time and the candidate has already appeared at the later stage that cannot be allowed. He refers to para 5 of the said judgment which is quoted herein below:- “5. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail of reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification and the production of the certificate at a later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeai. No costs

6. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the JPSC further submits that so far the reference before the larger bench is concerned, that was with regard to production of the caste certificate at the time of verification of the documents. He further submits that however, in view of “Divya (supra) the said issue has already set at rest.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has adopted the argument of Mr. Piprawall.

8. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the advertisement as well as judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the JPSC. 9 It is an admitted position that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has come out with Advertisement No. 22 of 2023 for filling up posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Pursuant to that the petitioner has applied online application for appearance in the said examination. Annexure 11 is the application form of the petitioner annexed with the writ petition. Looking into the same it appears that the petitioner has disclosed her domicile State as other, category un-reserved, correspondence address- Delhi and permanent address also Delhi. From the application form it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not applied for any reserved category either EWS or other reserved categories. The case of the petitioner is that she has applied for EWS certificate which was issued later on by the authority concerned and based on that prayer is made for change the category of the petitioner. This is not a case that the petitioner has applied for EWS category and she has not been able to produce the certificate due to laches on the part of the authorities concerned. She has applied under un- reserved category in view of above, the fact in the case of “Ram Kumar Gijroya” (supra) on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helping the petitioner as in that case O.B.C. certificate production was introduced by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board at the time of publication of result, where in the case in hand the condition is disclosed in the advertisement in Clause 2 and 16 of the said advertisement as such that judgment is not providing aid 10 to the petitioner. Clause 2(B) (i) of the advertisement speaks as under:- “ Clause 2 (B) (i). Age Above the age of 22 years and below the age of 35 years as on 31.01.2023.

9. Clause 16 of the advertisement further speaks as under:- “ Reservation Benefits (क) If the claim for reservation under the specified category is not made in the application, the benefit of reservation will not be granted. (ख) For candidates claiming reservation a local residence certificate is required. All candidates from the reserved categories claiming reservation must submit a local residence certificate in the prescribed format issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Official Language. The prescribed format is available on the Commission’s website www. Jpsc. Govt. in. (ग) As per memo number 235, dated 10-01- 2019 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Official Language, Jharkhand, women married into Jharkhand from other states are not eligible for reservation benefits in Jharkhand based on their marriage. (घ) The caste certificate should be issued based on the father's caste for the applicant. (ङ) The benefit of reservation for married/unmarried women applicants will be admissible based on the caste certificate issued in the name of the father. (च) At the time of document verification, it is mandatory to submit all the relevant original documents in accordance with the entries made in the online application (छ) Caste Certificate Instructions: 1. The reservation benefits for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in Jharkhand will be available based on a caste certificate issued by a competent authority, such as a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Deputy Commissioner or any equivalent officer. The certificate must be in the prescribed format as per the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Official Language, Jharkhand. The prescribed format is available on the Commission's website www.jpsc.gov.in 2 Extremely Backward Classes I and II: Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes: 11 The reservation benefits for candidates belonging to Extremely Backward Classes I and II in Jharkhand will be granted based on a caste certificate issued by a competent authority in the prescribed format No. 11 (Non-Creamy Laver), as per the instructions issued by memo number 1754 dated 25-02- 2019. If the validity of the Non- Creamy Layer certificate expires, it is mandatory to submit a Non-Creamy Layer self-declaration certificate as per the prescribed format available on the Commission's website www.jpsc.gov.in Note: The Non-Creamy Layer certificate (Central format) will not be accepted for services/posts under the Central Government. For state government services/posts, if Form-11 is required as mentioned in the caste certificate, the relevant Non-Creamy Layer certificate must also be attached, otherwise, reservation benefits will not be granted For Economically Weaker Sections (EWS): The benefit of reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections will be granted based on the income and asset certificate issued by a competent authority as per the prescribed format (Annexure-1). The prescribed format is available on the Commission's website. Disability Benefits: If a claim for disability benefits is not made under the specified category in the application, the benefit of disability will not be granted. The disability certificate issued by the competent authority will be valid as per memo number 5888 dated 06 08-2018 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Official Language. Jharkhand. It is mandatory to submit the verified copy of the disability certificate online along with the application before the main examination. Otherwise the claim for disability will not be accepted. The format for the disability certificate available on the Commission's website under "Important Jharkhand Government Circular and Notices." Sports Quota Benefits: As per memo number 332 dated 24-01-2022 of the Department of Administrative Reforms, and Official Language, reservation benefits under the sports quota are only available to residents of Jharkhand. For posts under the sports eligibility will be determined based on the level of competition as per the criteria prescribed by the Sports, Culture, and Youth Affairs Department, Jharkhand. Levels of Competition: International Olympics Committee or its associated federations organize the competition. Indian Olympic Association or its associated federations organize the national championship. 12 Participation at the national level competition.”

10. Looking into above clauses it is crystal clear that for claiming of the reservation the candidate has to fulfil the criteria made therein, wherein it is further stated that the person who is claiming reservation is required to produce the certificate.

11. Clause 16 (ग) speaks that the persons who are claiming the reservation on the basis of marriage they will not be provided the said leniency in view of Resolution No. 235 dated

10.10.2019.

12. In view of Clause 16 (घ) and (ङ) speak that caste certificate will be issued on the basis of caste certificate of the father and Clause 16 (छ) speaks of producing of caste certificate.

13. In view of above conditions made therein it appears that the petitioner was not able to produce the certificate as she has already applied under unreserved category. The petitioner has not applied under the category of EWS. Further, any of condition of advertisement is not under challenge. As such the contention of the petitioner is not being accepted by the Court. Further on which emphasis has been made in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to condition made in Clause 16 (iii) and it was said that the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the S.D.O. will be accepted. It was pointed out that the certificate was issued later on by the competent authority in view of that the petitioner is further entitled. 13

14. Clause 16 (iii) will come into play once the criteria made in Clause 16 (ख) and (ग) is fulfilled by any of the candidate. In the case in hand certificate itself was not produced at the time of fulfilling the form as the application was made under un-reserved category and lateron this writ petition was filed.

15. The issue in question is set at rest in view of judgment of the this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3500 of 2018 which was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 119 of 2021 and further in the case of “J & K Public Service Commission”(supra) and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Divya”(supra) it has categorically held that once the eligibility criteria and the date before which the certificate should be possessed and the date before the certificate is submitted is not fulfilled later on it cannot be allowed and in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered the case of “Ram Kumar Gijroya”(supra) and has distinguished the same in para 61, 62, 63, 64 of the said judgment. The subject matter of this case is further answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

16. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to reference to the larger Bench in L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020 is concerned, it transpired that was on different footing. In that case it is not a reference that once the application is made under unreserved category further that can be changed or not and further reference with regard to caste certificate will come into play once the application is made under the reserved category 14 and further “Ram Kumar Gijroya”(supra) is already been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Divya”(supra) and the case of “Ram Kumar Gijroya”(supra) reference is made in L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020.

17. Further it is well settled that on the existing law the High Court is required to decide the writ petition as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of India and Others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140.

18. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R 15