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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Deepak Kumar Tuti S/o James Munda - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 4266 of 2013
Decided On : 17-01-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Diwakar Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Sanjoy Piprawal, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Awanish Shekhar

Eligibility for reserved category appointments is contingent upon timely submission of required certificates; late submissions disqualify candidates under prescribed rules.

Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Public Service Commission Advertisement No. 28 of 2012 - Appointment of Geologist - The petitioner sought appointment under scheduled tribe category but failed to submit the caste certificate by the deadline stipulated, resulting in consideration in the general category. As held in Divya Vs. Union of India, strict adherence to application deadlines and documentation requirements is necessary. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

(B) Eligibility Criteria - The court reiterated that candidates must possess required certificates at the time of application, and non-compliance results in exclusion from reserved categories. Caste certificates must be submitted in a timely manner to ensure eligibility and maintain fairness among applicants. (Paras 35, 51, 62)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a Geologist post under the Mines and Geology Department, submitted the application before the deadline but provided the caste certificate late, hence he was not considered for the reserved category during selection.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the current situation is governed by strict timelines for documentation, thus upholding the general category classification of the petitioner.

Issues: Main issues included the validity of late submission of the caste certificate and its implications on the applicant's category.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that eligibility is contingent on timely possession of relevant certificates, emphasizing that relaxing this requirement would undermine the selection process and impair lawful candidates' opportunities.

Result: W.P.(S) No.4266 of 2013 is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. The instant matter has been assigned to this Bench and that is how the instant case has been listed before this Bench.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-J.P.S.C.

3. The prayer in this petition has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Geologist under the Mines and Geology Department of the State of Jharkhand in the reserved category of scheduled tribe.

4. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was an advertisement issued by the respondent Jharkhand Public Service Commission [JPSC] as Adv. No.28 of 2012 for the post of Geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology, Jharkhand. The petitioner applied for the post and submitted all the required certificates along with the form. He submits that the petitioner belongs to the reserved category and he has produced the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer with an undertaking as and when the certificate of caste issued by the S.D.O will be deposited later on. He submits that the S.D.O has issued the caste certificate on 08.06.2012 and in spite of that the petitioner has not been appointed and the petitioner has been considered in the general category as the caste certificate by the S.D.O was received belatedly.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent J.P.S.C submits that the last date of receiving of all the documents was 30.04.2012 whereas the caste certificate issued by the S.D.O was issued on 08.06.2012, i.e., after the last date of submitting the documents. He submits that in view of that the case of the petitioner was considered under the general category and he was not treated in the reserved category. He further submits that the process of appointment has already been completed in the year 2013 itself and according to him, now this petition has become infructuous.

6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not submitted the caste certificate issued by the S.D.O in terms of the advertisement and the last date of submission of the documents was 30.04.2012.

7. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Divya Vs. Union of India and others , (2024) 1 SCC 448 and paragraph nos. 1, 11, 14, 16, 22, 27, 35, 36, 37, 40, 51, 61, 62, 63, 64 of the judgment in the case is quoted hereinbelow:

“1. These writ petitions raise questions involving the interpretation of the Office Memoranda (“OM”) dated 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 prescribing the eligibility for the Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) category. Additionally, they also involve the interpretation of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 (“CSE-2022 Rules”), particularly, Rules 13, 27 and 28 thereof. The petitioners, for diverse reasons, were denied the benefit of the EWS category by the Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) for the Civil Services Examination of the year 2022. Was UPSC justified in denying them the benefit of reservation under the EWS category, is the main question involved.

11. The applicable date for possession in this case is 22-2-2022. This is because after the promulgation of the Rules, the third respondent Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) issued the examination notice on 2-2-2022 and the last date for submission of the application was 22-2- 2022 and the time of deadline was 6.00 p.m. on that day.

14. What is clear from the above is, before the closing date of application, the candidate has to be in possession of the requisite 5 certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 and before the Main Examination, the candidate is expected to upload the certificate.

16. For these reasons, the petitioner states that she was unable to obtain the certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 before 22-2-2022. It is also admitted by her that, by 13-12-2022, she was ab

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