D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6512 of 2013 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th August, 2015, whereby, the prayer of this appellant (original petitioner) for declaring his result and considering his candidature for 4th Combined Civil Service Examination was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Factual Matrix :

On 16th August, 2010, public advertisement no. 07/2010 was issued by the respondents for holding 4th Combined Civil Service Examination by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

This appellant (original petitioner) applied for the post of Sub-Divisional Officer.

The cut-off date to submit certificate for Mains examination was 9th March, 2012.

As per the advertisement, Residential Certificate, issued by an officer, not below the rank of, Sub-Divisional Officer, was to be given by the candidate on or before the cut-off date i.e. 9th March, 2012.

This appellant supplied Residential Certificate issued by a Circle Officer, who is below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer.

This appellant corrected his mistake and gave Residential Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer at the time of his interview i.e. on 1st November, 2012 i.e. after the cut-off date.

As the Residential Certificate was not given on or before 9th March, 2012, the result of this appellant was not published or declared by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and, hence, this appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6512 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th August, 2015 and, hence, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal challenging the conditions attached with the public advertisement, after appearing in the Preliminary Examination and after appearing in the Mains Examination and after appearing in the Interview.

3. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant :

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the Residential Certificate issued by the Circle Officer dated 20th July, 2010 was already submitted prior to the cut-off date i.e. 9th March, 2012.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that insertion of very condition in the public advertisement especially Clause no. 28 (i) which is at Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal is unconstitutional, in view of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (1) JCR 3 (Jhr.) (Special Bench). This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this appellant is a Scheduled Tribe category candidate and, therefore, he can submit Residential Certificate even after the cut-off date as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 2 JBCJ 19 equivalent to (2016) 4 SCC 754.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that chance to rectify the mistake or error was not given to this appellant. There is estoppel on the part of the respondents because they have allowed this appellant to appear in the Preliminary Examination and thereafter in the Mains Examination and thereafter in the Interview.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this condition is attached only in the 4th Combined Civil Service Examination, whereas, in the 5th and 6th Combined Civil Service Examinations, this condition has already been omitted by the respondents.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that