Raj Kumar Mahto vs State of Jharkhand - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1255

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1255

S.N.PATHAK
Raj Kumar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate, Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate, Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Pasari, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate, Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate, Ms. Neeta Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Debarsi Mondal, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Advocate, Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate, Mr. Omprakash, Advocate, Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate, Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Kishlay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Chandana, Advocate, Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Shahbaz Zama, Advocate, Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG., Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, AAG., Mr. Rahul Gupta, Sr. SC-I, Mrs. Chandra Prabha, SC-IV, Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to AAG., Ms. Kanchan Kumari, AC to AAG.
For the JPSC & JSSC Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate, Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate, Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

The issues involved in all the writ petitions are same, similar or identical and as such all have been tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The core issue involved in all these writ petitions is as to whether benefits of reservations under SC, ST, BC-I and BC-II categories can be given to concerned petitioners even when they failed to produce valid Caste Certificates at the time of verification of certificates in proforma as mentioned in the advertisements or issued prior to last date of submission of on-line application forms by the competent authorities in terms of the respective Advertisements.

4. The writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3887 of 2018 has prayed for appropriate directions upon the respondents to declare him successful in the examination – cum – merit list of BC-I categories Dental Doctors (Basic Grade) Examination held pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2016 by the JPSC since he has secured 156 marks in total (written plus interview) and, therefore, he should have been placed at 1st position in the final selection list recommended vide forwarding letter no. 1148, dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1255

S.N.PATHAKRaj Kumar Mahto – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

Cases Referred (13)

S.N.PATHAK
Raj Kumar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent