The rejection of an applicant's caste certificate based on a technicality in the format without a valid legal provision is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

This writ application has been filed for a direction commanding the respondent Jharkhand Public Service Commission to allow the petitioner to appear in the main examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

2. It appears that the petitioner has applied in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 4/2013 published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

3. It is relevant to state that the petitioner applied in the category of BC-1. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, she enclosed residential certificate, as well as caste certificate issued by competent authority along with the application form. It further appears that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, after scrutinizing the application and documents filed by the petitioner, had issued admit card and allowed her to appear in the preliminary examination. It is stated that in the preliminary examination, the last candidate, who became successful under BC-1 category, had obtained 46 marks, whereas the petitioner had obtained 72 marks, but in spite of that she has not been selected for appearing in the main examination, which is going to be held on 19.07.2014.

4. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not been treated as BC-1 category candidate because she has not filed caste certificate in prescribed proforma, meant for BC-1 category. It is submitted that she has submitted caste certificate issued by the competent authority in the proforma issued by the Government of India for other backward caste. However, it is not disputed that Sub Divisional Officer, Godda is the competent authority, who can issue caste certificate in favour of petitioner even in the proforma prescribed by the Jharkhand Government. It is submitted by Sri Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission that because of the aforesaid deficiency in the application form, filed by the petitioner, she has not been treated BC-1 candidate, rather treated as a general category candidate. He further submitted that the petitioner had not obtained sufficient marks, therefore, she could not compete in general category, therefore, has not been called to appear in the main written examination.

5. It is worth mentioning that in the supplementary affidavit, petitioner has annexed list of candidates, whose application forms rejected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on various grounds. From perusal of the grounds mentioned in Annexure-9, it appears that the application forms of some of the candidates rejected because the same were incomplete or in some cases, fee challan have not been annexed, in some cases, Birth Certificate not attached or in some cases, Law Graduate certificate not attached or in some cases, the certificate issued by Bar Council not attached. In one case, the application form was rejected due to non attestation of enclosed certificate. Thus, it appears that even after scrutiny, the candidature of the petitioner has not been rejected, even though she has given her certificate relating to caste on different proforma. This shows that at the time of scrutiny and issuance of admit card, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission had ignored aforesaid defect and allowed the petitioner to appear in the preliminary examination. It is also worth mentioning that Sri Sanjay Piprawall, has not produced any rule framed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and/or State Government to show that if any candidate produced caste certificate in different proforma, then the same will not be treated as valid and on that basis itself his/her candidature will be rejected as a reserved category candidate. In this connection, a judgment of this Court in WPC No. 4983 of 2004 Pashupati Nath Priyadarshi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors decided on 28.09.2004 is relevant, wherein a Bench of this Court has considered more or less similar question and has