Purnendu Singh, J. – It has jointly been informed on behalf of the parties that facts of the present writ petition are different from facts of CWJC No.6203 of 2020 and in view of the pleadings having been completed, the present writ petition can be disposed of at the time of Admission itself.

2. Heard Mr. Rupak Kumar, along with Mr. Sadanand Prasad Deo and Mr. Vikrant Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned Senior counsel, along with Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission and Mr. Shankar Kr. Thakur, learned AC to GP 27 for the State.

3. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter: –

“That this writ application is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of part of the final result dated 27.02.2020 declaring successful candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Government Training Colleges, Bihar whereby and whereunder the written examination of the petitioner has been cancelled and she has been treated to be a general category candidate inspite of having applied for other backward class category and having produced the caste certificate at the time of interview.”

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the advertisement No.02/2016 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Government Training College, Bihar, the petitioner applied for the said post under other backward class category candidate. She became successful in the written examination and, thereafter, she was called for interview on 11.12.2019 and on the date of interview, the petitioner had admitted that she has furnished the required document before the Section Officer and the same has been brought on record along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) by way of Annexure- R 2/D. In the check list, the petitioner at serial no. (vi) has declared that the Creamy Layer Certificate relating to income of her father of previous one year was not submitted, although, after making correction, at the time of interview, the petitioner had submitted Creamy Layer Certificate of her husband. The petitioner’s father at the time of her interview was alive. Learned counsel further submitted that in para-9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that for the first time new condition was incorporated in the letter of interview three years after advertisement in mid way with regard to furnishing of caste certificate and non-creamy layer certificate of parent in case of female candidate.

5. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512, which has been crystallized by the Apex Court in the recent judgment by the five judges bench in case of Tej Prakash Pathak & ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., Civil appeal no.2634 of 2013. On these grounds, learned counsel has submitted that the action of BPSC in not considering the petitioner in Non-Creamy Layer category is not sustainable and by treating the petitioner as Unreserved (General) category candidate, the BPSC has violated the mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. However in the said interview call letter, it has been clarified that the result would be subject to the final outcome of CWJC No.15081 of 2018 and CWJC No.13937 of 2019.

6. Per contra, Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the BPSC submitted that the petitioner herself in column No.(vi) in the check list had declared and made correction because she was not having certificate in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, on the date of interview, which is required in respect of Creamy Layer Certificate, as per the cond