A candidate's failure to submit a valid caste certificate before the deadline disqualifies them from reservation benefits, and mistakes in the application process do not warrant equitable relief.

ORDER :

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) :

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ‘Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T)’ in the subject-History & Civics pursuant to issuance of Advertisement No. 21/2016 published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi in compliance of the letters issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand whereby online applications were invited for the said post.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for Combined Trained Graduate Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 and appeared in the same. After the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination, his documents were also verified by the concerned authority and no question was raised with respect to his caste certificate. It is further submitted that letter no. 6196 dated 29.11.2018 (Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition) was issued by the respondent no. 5- the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi to the petitioner seeking explanation with an allegation that he tried to cheat the Commission by providing false information in the online application filed by him. The final result of the petitioner was published on 05.12.2018 mentioning that he could not submit reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time regarding caste certificate produced by him and hence, his candidature was considered under ‘unreserved’ category. After publication of the final result, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent no. 5 on 07.12.2018 for consideration of his grievance which is still pending.

3. It is also submitted that the petitioner was already issued a caste certificate dated 13.05.2009 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara but due to lack of knowledge, he mentioned in the application form about the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Narayanpur on 12.02.2017. However, at the time of verification of documents, he produced both the old and the new caste certificates dated 13.05.2009 and 12.02.2017 respectively, but the concerned authority did not provide opportunity to him to explain the matter.

4. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, submits that the petitioner failed to submit his valid caste certificate issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer before the last date of submission of online application form for extending the benefits of reservation in terms with the said advertisement. As such, the benefit of reservation was not extended to him and accordingly his candidature was considered under unreserved category.

5. It is further submitted that in the case of Soni Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1387 of 2017] and other analogous cases, learned Full Bench of this Court, vide judgement dated 21.09.2020, had quashed the appointments of TGT made in the scheduled districts of the State of Jharkhand. The said order was challenged by the appointed candidates of the scheduled districts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12490/2020 (Satyajit Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases which were disposed of vide order/judgment dated 02.08.2022 with a direction that instead of fresh/de-novo recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the scheduled districts/ areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut-off marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to the entire state and the respective candidates belonging to the non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas (districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of their individual merit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the aforesaid directions were issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case an