Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Mistry vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:30225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5450 of 2017
---------
Sanjay Mistry, son of Late Jamuna Mistry, residing at House No.2, Road No.4, Baridih Basti, Mithila Colony, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singbhum.
.... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education-cum-Chairman, State Level Establishment Committee, School Education & Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.
3. The District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, having office at P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town and District-Ranchi.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town and District- Ranchi.
.... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-I For the Resp.-JSSC : M/s Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates
---------
19/10.09.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs;
(i) To quash and set aside the decision contained in letter no. 1664 dated 23.8.2017 (Ann-12), so far as it relates to the petitioner for appointment on the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher Physics 1 2025:JHHC:30225 (Direct Recruitment) at serial no.1, whereby and whereunder, though the petitioner belonged to Backward Class category, the petitioner has not been treated as such on the ground that in the application form, the petitioner mentioned his category as Backward Class-II, whereas the caste certificate produced by the petitioner disclosed that the petitioner belonged to Backward Class-I category.
(ii) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject-Physics, pursuant to Advertisement No. 20/2016 issued by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (respondent no.4).
(iii) To also direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject-Physics treating the candidature of the petitioner in B.C.I category, as per the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner dated 23.1.2017.
(iv) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner, a postgraduate in Physics with 54% marks and a B.Ed. from Loyola B.Ed. College, Jamshedpur, belongs to the Badhai caste. Initially, he held a caste certificate under the category B.C.-II. He applied for the post of "Postgraduate Trained Teacher in Jharkhand" through Advertisement No. 20/2016, mentioning his category as B.C.-II.
Subsequently, on 23.1.2017, a fresh caste certificate was issued to him under the B.C.-I category as the Badhai caste was reclassified under B.C.-I. He appeared for the written examination held on 19.2.2017 and his roll number appeared in the published result.
During certificate verification, he submitted the updated B.C.-I certificate. However, an objection was raised 2 2025:JHHC:30225 since he had applied under B.C.-II but produced a B.C.-I certificate at the time of document verification. Despite his explanation, the Commission decided that he could not be considered under the reserved category.
The final result was published on 24.8.2017 which did not include his roll number. The cutoff marks for the categories were 224 (unreserved), 210 (B.C.-II), and 216 (B.C.-I). The Petitioner scored 234 marks, exceeding the cut off for all categories. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ application.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he secured more marks than the last selected candidate in all the categories, i.e. BC-I category or BC-II category or even U.R. category, but his case for selection has been rejected on the ground that in the application form though the Petitioner claims appointment under BC-II category, but during document verification, he has produced the caste certificate under BC-I category (Refer page no. 76 of the writ application).
4. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards the application form filed by him (Refer page no. 57 Annexure-5); wherein the Petitioner has filled up reservation category as BC-II. However, since there was a specific stipulation in the advertisement that the caste certificate must be beyond a particular day and since the Petitioner was having the caste certificate which was prior to the required date mentioned in the advertisement; he applied for a fresh caste certificate on 31.12.2016.
Thereafter, the Petitioner waited for fresh caste certificate as required under the advertisement but when the last date came closer and the Petitioner could not receive the 3 2025:JHHC:30225 fresh caste certificate as required under the advertisement in question, he filled up the 'Application Form' mentioning the details of old caste certificate in the column of reservation category as BC-II and further just below in the column of "for the claim of reservation mention certificate number" he has mentioned the application date on which he applied for latest caste certificate as required under the advertisement and since the acknowledgement of the said application was received on 16.01.2017 and the acknowledgment slip was not received by him on that date due to some strike; he mentioned the date on which he has actually received it.
5. Mr. Tandon representing the Petitioner contended that those dates are of not much importance in view of the fact that the Petitioner secured more marks than the cut-off in either of the categories. He further clarified that initially the caste of the Petitioner comes under BC-II category but the Government vide notification has perhaps changed the status of the caste of the Petitioner from B.C.-II to B.C.-I and due to that very reasons, the fresh certificate which was issued to him was under BC-I category.
He contended that there is no allegation made in the impugned order; nor in the affidavit that any forged certificate has been produced by the Petitioner in order to procure the job and the fact of mentioning the details of BC-II category in the 'Application Form' and production of caste certificate under BC-I was nothing but due to the change in circumstances which has been stated hereinabove; as such, the action of the Respondents in not recommending the case of this Petitioner for appointment is not sustainable in the eye of law.
He further draws attention of this Court towards 4 2025:JHHC:30225 the order dated 11.03.2019; wherein this court has categorically ordered that "in the meantime, one post should be kept reserved and the same will be filled up only after disposal of the writ application."
6. Mr. Tandon further draws attention of this court towards the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6657 of 20241; wherein this Court after referring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Olga Tellis Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation,2 wherein it has been held that there is no estoppel against the constitution, contended that the action of the Respondents in not offering appointment to the Petitioner is illegal and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. He further submits that the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Appeal (C) No (s). 20375/2025, as held as under;
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the material placed on record.
2. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of."
8. He reiterated that the discrepancy which has been pointed out in the impugned order especially at page 76 that the Petitioner has claimed reservation under BC-II category and has produced the certificate under BC-I category is only due to the change in circumstances beyond the hand of the Petitioner.
1Deepak Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand 2 1985 (3) SCC 545 5 2025:JHHC:30225
9. Learned counsel for the State and Respondent- JSSC relying on their respective counter-affidavit justified the impugned order and submits that in the advertisement it was very clear that there should be no error and further the reservation column should be properly indicated.
10. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel representing JSSC further supported the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 and relies upon the order of the Division Bench of this court rendered in L.P.A. No. 119 of 2021; wherein this court has categorically held in para 6 and 7 as under: -
"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 Neutral Citation 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 Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the respective parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that an Advertisement No. 20/2016 was published in which several posts were advertised including the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in Physics.
It appears that in the advertisement there was one stipulation that a person who is claiming reservation under a particular caste shall submit a fresh caste certificate issued on or after 31.03.2013; in view of that clause Petitioner applied for fresh caste certificate.
12. It further transpires from record that in the column of reservation category Petitioner wrote BC-II and in the column-"for the claim of reservation mention certificate number"; the Petitioner has given the acknowledgment / 6 2025:JHHC:30225 registration number of the application which was applied by him pursuant to the advertisement.
It has not been disputed by either of the parties that in every advertisement for the purpose of reservation, fresh caste certificate is required. As a matter of fact, Mr. Priprawall supported this point and had submitted that especially in the case of BC-I and BC-II category, latest certificate of caste is necessary because of the reason of creamy layer. Since the caste of the Petitioner from BC-II category changed to BC-I category, in view of the subsequent Government notification issued from time to time, the Petitioner produced the latest certificate issued after 31.03.2013, as required under the advertisement.
13. The lis which cropped up in this case is due to the fact that the Petitioner mentioned his caste in the application form for reservation under BC-II category. However, at the time of verification of documents, he had submitted the latest caste certificate strictly in terms of the advertisement which indicated caste of the petitioner as BC-I. This ultimately led to the rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner.
14. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the marks obtained by the Petitioner which is admittedly 234 and as informed by learned counsel for the parties that the cut-off marks of last selected candidate in BC-I category is 216 and in BC-II category is 210 marks. Even, the cut-off marks of last selected candidate in unreserved category is 224 therefore, there is no dispute as to fact that if the Petitioner switches from BC-II to B.C.-I or vice-versa; then also he will not get more benefit and the fact remains that the score of the last selected candidate in both the categories i.e. B.C.I or B.C.II, is much less than that of the Petitioner.
72025:JHHC:30225
15. This court is also of the view that it is a very difficult for a person who belongs to a particular backward caste to know as to whether his caste has changed BC-II to BC-I; unless and until he goes on checking the government notifications frequently.
16. In the case at hand, admittedly the Petitioner submitted the form mentioning BC-II category because of the fact that earlier he was having a certificate of BC-II category (Annexure-2) which is issued in the year 2010 and in view of the advertisement, he applied for fresh caste certificate which was duly issued to him prior to the date of document verification, showing the Petitioner under B.C.-I category and this led to the entire dispute.
So far as the issue of estoppel is concerned; the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Olga Tellis (supra) has held in para 28 that there can be no estoppel against the constitution. The constitution is not only the paramount law of the land but it is the source of substance of all laws.
As far as the contention of the Respondents is concerned that the Petitioner is estopped from claiming reservation in BC-1, as he has mentioned in application form that he belongs to BC-II, this Court holds that there cannot be any estoppel against the Constitution. The objects of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution are that more meritorious persons have to be given preference in the matter of appointment. The peculiar and admitted facts of this case are that the Petitioner has not only scored more marks than BC-1 and BC-II category but he has scored more marks than the unreserved category also. That is why, on the first date of hearing, this Court has reserved one post to keep vacant for this Petitioner.
82025:JHHC:30225
17. This Writ petition was filed in the year 2017 and for last eight years the post is still vacant. In this view of the matter, there can be no impediment for the Respondents to appoint this Petitioner on such vacant post, as this post cannot be offered as on date to any other person who secured lower marks than that of the Petitioner. Non-appointment of this Petitioner would result in the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
As a matter of fact, the Division Bench of this court in the case of. Deepak Kumar (supra) has dealt both the cases i.e. the case of Olga Tellis (supra) and case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India3. In the case of Indra Sawhney, at paragraph no. 6, 7, 8 it has been held as under:-
"6. It is also now well settled principle that there is no estoppel against the Constitution. In this regard reference may also be made to the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-
28 as under:
"28. .................There can be no estoppel against the Constitution. The Constitution is not only the paramount law of the land but, it is the source and sustenance of all laws. Its provisions are conceived in public interest and are intended to serve a public purpose. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principle that consistency in word and action imparts certainty and honesty to human affairs. If a person makes a representation to another, on the faith of which the latter acts to his prejudice, the former cannot resile from the representation made by him. He must make it good. This principle can have no application to representations made regarding the assertion or enforcement of fundamental rights. For example, the concession made by a person that he does not possess and would not exercise his right to free speech and expression or the right to move freely throughout the territory of India cannot deprive him of those constitutional rights, any more than a concession that a person has no right of personal liberty can justify his detention contrary to the terms of Article 22 of the Constitution. Fundamental rights are undoubtedly conferred by the Constitution upon individuals which have to be asserted and enforced by them, if those rights are violated. But, the high purpose which the Constitution seeks to achieve by conferment of fundamental rights is not only to benefit individuals but to 3 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 9 2025:JHHC:30225 secure the larger interests of the community. The Preamble of the Constitution says that India is a democratic Republic. It is in order to fulfil the promise of the Preamble that fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution, some on citizens like those guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 21 and 29 and, some on citizens and non-citizens alike, like those guaranteed by Articles 14, 21, 22 and 25 of the Constitution. No individual can barter away the freedoms conferred upon him by the Constitution. A concession made by him in a proceeding, whether under a mistake of law or otherwise, that he does not possess or will not enforce any particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him in that or any subsequent proceeding. Such a concession, if enforced, would defeat the purpose of the Constitution. Were the argument of estoppel valid, an all-powerful State could easily tempt an individual to forego his precious personal freedoms on promise of transitory, immediate benefits.........................."
7. As a matter of fact, the issue in the instant writ application is with regard to reservation and it purpose which has been dealt in detail in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 wherein at paras 146, 147 & 155, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as under:
"146. The basic policy of reservation is to off-set the inequality and remove the manifest imbalance, the victims of which for bygone generations lag far behind and demand equality by special preferences and their strategies. Therefore, a comprehensive methodological approach encompassing jurisprudential, comparative, historical and anthropological conditions is necessary. Such considerations raise controversial issues transcending the routine legal exercise because certain social groups who are inherently unequal and who have fallen victims of societal discrimination require compensatory treatment. Needless to emphasis that equality in fact or substantive equality involves the necessity of beneficial treatment in order to attain the result which establishes an equilibrium between two sections placed unequally.
147. It is more appropriate to recall that "There is equality only among equals and to equate unequals is to perpetuate inequality.
155. The above illustration and analogies would lead to a conclusion that there is an ocean of difference between a well advanced class and a backward class in a race of open competition in the matters of public employment and they, having been placed unequally, cannot be measured by the same yardstick. As repeatedly pointed out, it is only in order to make the unequals equal, this constitutional provision, namely, clause (4) of Article 16 has been designed and purposely introduced providing some preferential treatment to the backward class....................."
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the settled proposition of law, the information given by the JPSC through mail dated 31.07.2024 regarding Civil Judge 10 2025:JHHC:30225 (Junior Division) Regular Advertisement No.22/2023 P.T. result, whereby it has been informed that the Petitioner has since claimed no reservation, so JPSC has considered the same as unreserved, deserves to be, and is, hereby, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the JPSC is directed to publish the result of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Regular Advertisement No.22/2023 P.T. of the Petitioner afresh considering him a candidate of Schedule Case and declare him successful in the Preliminary Test of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Regular Advertisement No.22/2023, as it is an admitted case that cut-off under Schedule Caste category is 32 and the Petitioner has obtained 36 marks."
Emphasis Supplied
18. As such, this Court is of the firm opinion that reservation is a beneficial legislation granted by the State and as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Olga Tellis (supra), there can be no estoppel against the constitution; as such merely on technical reason that also not due to the fault of the petitioner, but due to the change of circumstances of the caste of the petitioner, the impugned order deserves to be, and is, hereby quashed and set side.
19. So far as the judgment cited by the Respondents is concerned, the facts are different; as such, the same cannot be relied upon. Further, the said judgment has not considered the issue of estoppel; as such the same is not applicable in the instant writ application.
20. Consequently, the decision contained in letter no. 1664 dated 23.8.2017 (Annexure-12), is hereby, set aside so far as it relates to the Petitioner and the Respondent-JSSC is directed to recommend the name of the Petitioner for appointment on the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject-Physics treating him in BC-I category and further the concerned Respondent is directed to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner with all consequential benefits.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
112025:JHHC:30225
21. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., of any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) September 10, 2025 Amardeep/AFR 12