The court emphasized that the change in category would affect the result of the examination, and the appellant-petitioner's own declaration in the form led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

ORDER :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

1. Defect No.2 pointed out by the Office regarding payment of authentication fee of Rs.15/-shall be removed in course of the day.

2. By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3500 of 2018, has assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge on 18.02.2021, whereby her writ petition, seeking to quash the notice dated 27.06.2018 by which the candidature of the petitioner was treated under the general category candidate, was dismissed.

3. Counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to BC I category (Backward Class I), but due to inadvertence in the application form for the Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Competitive Examination 2017, she has wrongly filled her category to be that of BC II. The said error was a bonafide error, which would be evident from the fact that the Caste Certificate number, which she had mentioned in the application form, tallies with the actual caste certificate of the petitioner, which reflects that the petitioner is actually a BC I candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that she was declared a successful candidate, but when the documents were verified, her candidature was considered against the general category on the ground that she being BC I candidate, but had applied as a BC II candidate. As per the petitioner, she had obtained more marks than cut off marks of both BC I and BC II category. Considering the aforesaid facts, she had challenged the action of the respondents, whereby she was considered to be a general candidate. Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents could have easily corrected and ignored the error committed by the petitioner. He relies on and refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission versus Gyan Prakash Srivastava reported in (2012) 1 SCC 537.

4. Counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission submits that admittedly the petitioner filled up the application form showing her to be a BC II candidate, when, in fact, she was a BC I candidate. This is a major discrepancy, which resulted in considering the candidature of the petitioner as a general category candidate. He submits that there is no illegality in the aforesaid process.

5. After hearing the parties and after going through the records, we find that admittedly the petitioner filled up the application form to appear in the Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017. The online form was filled up by the appellant-petitioner and against the column ‘Category’, she declared that she is a BC II candidate (Backward Class II). She appeared in the examination as a BC II candidate. She also qualified as a BC II candidate. Thereafter, during verification, when her caste certificate was produced, it was detected that the petitioner belongs to BC I category, as the caste certificate, which was issued to the petitioner, was of BC I. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had applied in BC II category, when, in fact, the petitioner was in BC I category and was, in fact, having certificate of BC I category.

6. Further, Clause 9 of the advertisement had cautioned the candidates that before submitting the online application, they should properly check the application. It was further mentioned that once the application form is submitted, no rectification will be allowed which will affect the result of the examination. Taking note of all these aspects, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner.

7. We find no error in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge as the appellant-petitioner, herself, in the form, had mentioned herself belonging to BC II Category, when in fact, she was not. Further, the change in the category will affect the result of the examination. Learned Single Judge, thus, had rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.3500 of 2018. This Letters Patent