Candidates must comply with the specified requirements in government service advertisements, and the Commission's discretion to relax requirements does not entitle candidates to claim waiver or mandamus.

(Per: Hon'ble the Chief Justice)

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 18590 of 2010 insofar as the learned Single Judge has refused to issue writ of mandamus upon the respondents to appoint the writ petitioners in Government service, the writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. Pursuant to the advertisement published on 23rd August, 2006 by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') inviting applic3.tions for 224 vacancies in the Department of Statistics and Evaluation, the appellants made application for selection and appointment in the category of Other Backward Class. Out of 224 vacancies notified, 27 vacancies were reserved for the Backward Class candidates. In respect of Backward Class candidates the said advertisement provided that the application shall be accompanied by a caste certificate and non-creamy layer certificate issued by the District Magistrate. The1dvertisement also stipulated that in case of the reserved category candidates if the requisite caste certificate were not annexed the candidature of such candidates would be considered in the 'General category'. The last date for receiving the applications was 22nd September, 2006.

3. Indisputably, though the appellants had applied in the category of Backward Class, they produced the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and not by the District Magistrate as required. It appears that apart from the appellants there were other Backward Class candidates who had failed to produce required certificates issued by the District Magistrate. For the benefit of such candidates the Commission issued a public notice on 31st October, 2009 to remove the deficiency by 16th November, 2009. The said period was later extended upto 31st November, 2009. Admittedly, pursuant to the said public notice also, the appellants did not remove the deficiency. Their applications were not considered in the category of Backward Class. Pursuant to the above referred recruitment process, a panel of 207 candidates in various categories was published on 14th August, 2010. The appellants' candidature was not considered with other Backward Class candidates and they were not selected in 'General category.

4. Feeling aggrieved the appellants filed above C.W.J.C. No. 18590 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants alleged hostile discrimination as the appellants were not given individual intimation to remove the deficiency. The appellants also challenged the action of the Commission in preparing a merit list of 207 candidates as against 224 vacancies notified.

5. The petition was contested by the Commission. According to the commission, the terms of the advertisement specifically required the caste certificate and non-creamy layer certificate issued by the District Magistrate. In absence of such certificates the Commission was under no obligation to consider the candidature of the appellants in the category of Backward Class. Nevertheless, the Commission did relent and gave opportunity to such candidates to produce the required certificates even after the due date. An individual intimation was also sent to each of such candidates including the appellants. Even after the individual intimation and the public notice the appellants failed to remove the deficiency. The action of the Commission in not considering the applications of the appellants in Backward Class category was justified. In support thereof the Commission produced copies of the public notice and list of candidates to whom the individual intimation was sent.

In the said list the names of the appellants appear on SI. Nos. 17 and 202. The copies of the communication dated 22nd October, 2009 are also placed on record.

6. The learned Single Judge has held that the burden of proof of service of the individual intimation lay upon the Commission