Raj Santan Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6452 of 2018 Raj Santan Kumar ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Range, P.O. &P.S.Hazaribagh. 3.the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. 4.Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission F-49/50 Sector-III, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi --------- .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-JSSC For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, A.C. to AGV : Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate 10/ 22.03.2024 --------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs: 1) To quash and set aside the Koderma district force Order (Annexure-9) no. 1242 of 2018 dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been discharged from service. (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC in short) published an Advertisement No. 04/2015 for appointment on the post of Constable. The last date for submission of online application was 30.09.2015 which was later on extended. Clause 8 (III) of 2 the advertisement required that the caste certificate must be issued after 31.03.2015 to claim reservation. The Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 23.07.2015 changed the caste of the petitioner from BC-II to BC-I category. The petitioner submitted online application form A under BC-II category. The petitioner applied for issuance of a new caste certificate which was issued under BC-I category. The petitioner underwent the selection process and was called for document verification on 04.01.2017 where the petitioner produced both the caste certificates dated 13.02.2014 and 21.12.2016. Pursuant thereto; the petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 29.03.2017 and the petitioner submitted his joining on 01.04.2017 and started discharging his duties. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice alleging therein that he submitted his application form under BC-II category; whereas he produced a caste certificate under BC-I category and a caste certificate under BC- II category of the year 2014 issued by BDO. The petitioner submitted show cause reply stating therein that he did not suppress anything and that he produced both the caste certificates. Petitioner has obtained 210 marks which are higher 3 than the last selected candidate under general category. Only relaxation given to the petitioner is of age relaxation of 22 days. However, the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground that he submitted application form under BC-II category; whereas he produced caste certificate under BC-I category. The petitioner made representation/ appeal before the respondents. 5.
Legal Reasoning
judgment passed by Coordinate bench of this Court in the case 4 of Pushpanjali Kumari vs The State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2023 SCC Online Jhar 3575 wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court has decided the issue in favour of the candidate. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the counter affidavit and submits that the Caste Certificate No. JHCC/2016/713218 dated 21.12.2016 issued by Sub Divisional Officer is not valid for extending the benefits of reservation to the Petitioner in view of the facts that petitioner in his online application has claimed benefits of reservation under B.C-II category and aforesaid caste certificate is meant for B.C-I category and the Caste Certificate No. 293 dated 13.02.2014 issued by Block Development Officer, Chatra is not valid for extending the benefits of reservation to the petitioner in view of the specific stipulation made in the Advertisement and in view of the fact that same has been issued by an Officer below the Rank of Sub Divisional Officer. He contended that the Petitioner failed to produce valid caste certificate in terms of the Advertisement and as such result of Petitioner was kept in abeyance during recommendation of the candidates. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 20.07.2018 was issued to the petitioner and same was also communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma vide letter No. 3294 dated 20.07.2018 and the reply of 5 show cause was not found satisfactory; as such the benefits were not extended to the petitioner and the candidature of the petitioner was treated under un-reserved category. He further submits that from perusal of Clause-7 of the prospectus vide Annexure- 2 of the writ application it is clear that the upper age limit for BC-I and BC-II (Male) candidates have been fixed as 27 years with cutoff date 01.08.2015 and for unreserved category candidates the maximum age has been fixed as 25 years and the date of birth of the Petitioner is 10.07.1990 and as such the age of the petitioner was more on the cutoff date i.e. 01.08.2015 as the same was 25 years and 22 days; thus it was 22 days more than the fixed upper age limit of the unreserved category candidates and as such petitioner was found over-age as unreserved category candidate in terms of the Advertisement and as such he is not eligible for appointment. He lastly submits that Petitioner was inadvertently recommended for appointment on the post of Constable for District- Koderma under B.C-II category in the earlier recommendation result and while recasting the result in light of order passed in W.P(S) No. 3239/2017 Mithun Kumar -Vs- The State Of Jharkhand and Ors by this Hon’ble Court wherein it was found that Petitioner is not eligible for appointment in terms of the Advertisement; the earlier recommendation was revoked in the recast result and same was also communicated 6 to the Petitioner vide Letter No. 5248 dated 09.10.2018 and as such no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 8. Having head learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it appears JSSC published an Advertisement No. 04/2015 for appointment on the post of Constable. The last date for submission of online application was 30.09.2015 which was later on extended. Clause 8 (III) of the advertisement required that the caste certificate must be issued after 31.03.2015 to claim reservation. The Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 23.07.2015 changed the caste of the petitioner from BC-II to BC-I category. The petitioner who submitted online application form A under BC-II category; again applied for issuance of a new caste certificate in view of the Government resolution which was issued in his favor under BC-I category. Further, the petitioner underwent the selection process and was called for document verification on 04.01.2017 where the petitioner produced both the caste certificates dated 13.02.2014 and 21.12.2016. Thereafter the petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 29.03.2017 and the petitioner submitted his joining on 01.04.2017 and started discharging his duties. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice alleging therein that he submitted his application 7 form under BC-II category; whereas he produced a caste certificate under BC-I category and finally the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground that he submitted application form under BC-II category whereas he produced caste certificate under BC-I category. 9. It further transpires from record that the Petitioner obtained 210 marks and cut-off for BC-I, BC-II and UR category was less; thus the petitioner cannot be punished for a fault as on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was in BC-II category, hence there is no fault on the part of petitioner to mention BC-II in his application form. Admittedly, the Petitioner submitted his both caste certificates and did not furnished any incorrect information and after full satisfaction, petitioner was allowed to join the service and petitioner successfully completed his training. 10. As a matter of fact, in the instant case, the Advertisement dated 01.05.2015 did not entail compliance of the caste certificate along with the application and the only condition was that it should be issued after 31.03.2015 and the caste status was to be governed by the notifications issued from time to time. Admittedly, much after the issuance of the advertisement and before the date of authentication of the documents, changes were made in the list of the reserved category classification. As stated herein above, the petitioner has not suppressed any fact 8 and on the date of submission of his application, he was under B.C-II category. 11. In the similar facts and circumstances and in respect to the same advertisement, the issue involved in this case has been dealt in details in the case of Pushpanjali Kumari (supra) wherein at para 25 to 32 it has been held as under: “25. There is another aspect of the matter when this case is seen in the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 14th June 2022 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2019 (RanjeetPrabhakar v. the State of Jharkhand) against which Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14377 of 2022 has also been dismissed. in the issued category under Advertisement case of RanjeetPrabhakar (supra) 26. In the appellant had applied in the selection process under the BC-II on 5th November 2014 by JSSC but his candidature was treated under general category only on the ground that he had applied under the BC-II category but had produced caste certificate under the BC-1 category. After the advertisement, vide resolution dated 18.12.2015, the the State of Jharkhand was caste category restructured and the caste sundi was brought in the list of BC-I from BC-II and consequently, he produced the caste certificate issued under B.C. I category at the time of verification. This Court considered the fact that the appellant had secured more marks than the last selected candidate under BC-I category and even for BC-II, the cut-off marks were less than the marks secured by the appellant. The Court also considered the number of unfilled vacancies and found that there were still vacancies under BC-I category as well as BC-II category and directed the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) to recommend the case of the appellant under the BC-I category though the appellant had applied under the BC-II category. 27. As mentioned above, in the present case, the require Advertisement dated 01.05.2015 did not submission of the caste certificate along with the application and the only rider was that it should be issued after 31.03.2015 and the caste status was to be governed by the notifications issued from time to time. Much after the issuance of the advertisement and before 9 the date of verification of the documents, there have been inter-se changes made in the list of the reserved category classification and vide notification dated 18th December 2015 and therefore there was lot of confusion in the minds of the candidates as regards the declaration of caste status at the time of submitting the form. lastly is the BC category is excluded by a notification after 28. There can also be a situation in which a caste not falling under included by a subsequent notification or a caste falling under the BC category the advertisement and before the date of verification of the certificates. The fact remains that there have been changes concerning one or the other caste falling under the broad category of “other backward classes”. No particular date regarding the caste status having been provided in the advertisement, the candidature was tentative subject to the production of caste certificate at the stage of verification of certificates. Under such circumstances, a candidate falling under „other backward classes‟ may fall under the list of BC-1 or BC-II depending upon notification issued from time to time till the stage of verification of the documents. 29. Enabling the candidates to obtain a caste certificate after applying and not providing any date concerning the caste status for considering the candidature under one or the other category or sub-category is bound to create such problems/uncertainty regarding caste status falling under one or the other sub-category BC-I or BC-II within the broad category of „other backward classes‟. 30. The list of castes under BC-I category or BC-II category concerning one or the other community having remained fluid the benefit should go to the appellant as the advertisement did not require that the candidate should have a caste certificate at the time of filing of application or on any particular cut-off date. In such circumstances, the candidature of the appellant was required to be considered under the BC-II (female) category whose certificate was produced by the appellant at the time of verification of the certificate and not under the general category (female) on account of non- production of caste certificate of BC-I category for which she had applied.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner obtained 210 marks and cut-off for BC-I, BC-II and UR category was less and the petitioner cannot be punished for no fault of his, as on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was in BC-II category, hence there is no fault on the part of petitioner to mention BC-II in his application form. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his rights of reserved category only on the ground that the category of this petitioner was changed from BC-II to BC-I by the Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 23.07.2015, during the ongoing process of recruitment. 6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted his both caste certificates and did not furnished any incorrect information, and after full satisfaction, petitioner was allowed to join the service and petitioner successfully completed his training. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
Decision
31. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned writ Court which has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that it is a settled principle of law that every selection process has to 10 the be completed strictly in terms of the advertisement. Further, learned writ Court has also quoted paragraph 6 of the judgment passed in the case of “Rohan Thakur v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 3 JBCJ 44 (HC) where under the advertisement there was a specific provision to upload the caste certificate at the time of submission of form failing which the candidate was to be treated under general category. There is no such provision in the advertisement involved in the present case. 32. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the writ Court is set aside and the order impugned in the writ petition, that is, Bokaro District Force Order no. 2111 of 2018 contained in Memo no. 3907 dated 29.10.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 discharging the appellant from the service is also set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with continuity of service but without any back wages.” 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and the ruling referred to herein above; the impugned Order dated 24.10.2018 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order with continuity of service but without any back wages. 13. Consequently, the instant writ application is allowed. Amardeep/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)