The main legal point established is the importance of considering candidates under the correct caste category, taking into account the fluidity of caste classifications and the lack of specific provisions in the advertisement regarding caste certificate submission.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.09.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6587 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) “To quash and set aside the Bokaro District Force Order no. 2111 of 2018 contained in Memo no. 3907 dated 29.10.2018(Annexure-8) passed by Respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been discharged from the service.

(ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages.”

4. The fundamental facts of the case are not in dispute.

5. In the year 2015, Advertisement no. 04/15 was issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as JSSC) for appointment to the post of constables in all the districts of the State of Jharkhand. The applications were to be submitted online by 15.10.2015. The requirement under clause 8(iii) of the Advertisement was that the certificate in connection with the BC-II or BC-I category must be issued after 31.03.2015 to sustain a claim for reservation. There was no requirement in the advertisement to possess a caste certificate at the time of filing the application form but the caste certificate was to be produced at the time of verification of documents.

6. The appellant submitted online application on 15.10.2015 and mentioned her category as BC-I falling under the broad category of “other backward classes”. The appellant was found fit in all respects and passed the physical and medical fitness tests.

7. The appellant belongs to the caste Koeri for which the appellant was issued a caste certificate on 24.12.2016 pursuant to an application filed on 24.11.2016 and her caste falls under the BC-II category under the broad category of “other backward classes”.

8. The counseling/certificate verification was conducted on 02.01.2017 when the appellant submitted her caste certificate dated 24.12.2016. The appellant got selected and a call/appointment letter was issued to her by the office of respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 2102 dated 28.04.2017 and the appellant joined on 28.04.2017. After more than one year, the appellant received a letter from JSSC being memo no. 2761 dated 01.06.2018 asking the appellant to explain her caste category seeking reservation. The appellant responded to the same and submitted that she did not suppress any fact from the respondents and she was discharging her duty after the appointment. Thereafter the appellant was discharged from service vide order impugned in the writ petition dated 29.10.2018 issued by respondent no. 3.

9. The reason for her discharge was that she had applied under BC-I category but her caste certificate was of BC-II category and therefore her candidature was treated under the unreserved female category and she could not be selected on merits amongst the candidates under unreserved female category.

10. The specific case of the appellant before the learned writ Court was that the appellant was appointed after due scrutiny and there was no suppression from her side as the caste certificate was duly produced and therefore she was wrongly discharged. Neither any opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant before her discharge, nor any memo of charge was issued, nor any inquiry officer was appointed and therefore the action of the respondents was illegal. It was also the case of the appellant that the appellant had produced her caste certificate dated 24.12.2016 and as per the caste certificate, the appellant belongs to the BC-II category and hence the appellant should have been considered under the BC-II category and not under the unreserved female category as there were vacancies in the female (BC-II) category.

11. A counter affidavit was filed before the writ Court by respondent no. 4 i.e. on behalf of the JSSC opposing the prayer by