SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Naodeepika Ekka – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 869 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Anil Kr. Sinha, L.V.N. Shahdeo.
For the Respondents: Pinky Tiwary, Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be altered, and the mandatory nature of the instructions issued by the Commission must be strictly adhered to.

Headnote:

Caste Certificate - Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination - Clause 14, 22, 7 - The court discussed the relevant rules and clauses of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules and the advertisement to adjudicate the case. It found that the petitioner uploaded a residential certificate instead of a caste certificate, leading to the rejection of her candidature. The court held that the terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be altered, and the petitioner's mistake in uploading the wrong certificate cannot be rectified after the conclusion of all stages of the examination process. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the instructions issued by the Commission and the strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination under the S.T. category. Despite clearing all stages of the examination, her candidature was rejected due to the inadvertent submission of a residential certificate instead of a caste certificate. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to quash the rejection and consider her for appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's mistake in uploading the wrong certificate led to the rejection of her candidature, and no interference was warranted in the case. It held that the terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be altered, and the petitioner's challenge to the terms and conditions after being declared unsuccessful was impermissible.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's candidature due to the submission of a residential certificate instead of a caste certificate, and the subsequent challenge to the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the instructions issued by the Commission and the strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. It held that the petitioner's mistake in uploading the wrong certificate cannot be rectified after the conclusion of all stages of the examination process.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's candidature and emphasizing the mandatory nature of the instructions and the strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

Prayers made

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the note given in the Final Remarks Statement (Annexure-9) issued in favour of the petitioner in which it has been made a final remarks that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected in view of Clause 7(i) of Advertisement citing reason that she has submitted the residential certificate instead of caste certificate.

Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short “JPSC”) to consider the caste certificate of petitioner and issue offer of appointment as she has obtained 574 marks, which is more than the last selected candidate under S.T. Category in the Combined Civil Services Examination, 2021.

Factual Matrix

3. The respondent-JPSC has issued advertisement no. 01/2021 for Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, 2021. The petitioner being eligible in all respect had applied for appearing in the recruitment process under S.T. category. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the preliminary test in which he was declared successful and became entitled to appear in the mains examination. Thereafter, the respondent-JPSC invited applications for combined civil services (mains) examination from the candidates who have passed the Preliminary Examination, pursuant to which, the petitioner filled-up the form for mains examination under S.T. category. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the mains examination in which she was declared successful. Thereafter, the respondent-JPSC has uploaded interview e-call letter for combined civil services examination, 2021 and by way of said letter, it has been informed to the petitioner that she has been shortlisted for document verification and interview and directed the petitioner to appear for document verification which was scheduled on 11.05.2022 and 12.05.2022. As per the instruction of the respondent-JPSC, the petitioner appeared on 11.05.2022 where, for the first time, she came to know that she has uploaded residential certificates instead of caste certificate. On that information, the petitioner immediately on the very same day, submitted the valid caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Dumri Block, Gumla in prescribed format issued on 18.10.2019 and the respondent-authority has kept the same on record. On the very next day i.e. on 12.05.2022, the petitioner also submitted a request letter to the respondent-JPSC to consider her candidature taking into consideration the caste certificate enclosed with the said request letter. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the interview conducted by the respondent-JPSC on 12.05.2022, in which she participated and at no point of time, any objection was raised by the respondents regarding the candidature of the petitioner. However, on 01.06.2022, when final result was published by the respondent-JPSC, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the final merit list. It is the specific case of the petitioner that despite the fact she has obtained 574 marks which is more than the marks obtained by last selected candidate under S.T. category (555 marks), she was not selected and her candidature was rejected solely on the ground that while filling-up the application form for Preliminary Examination, she had not uploaded her caste certificate in the column provided for the purpose rather inadvertently, she uploaded her residential certificate.

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L.V.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel further argues that the caste certificate which has been issued by the competent authority in prescribed format cannot be rejecte

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top