Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Prabhakar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 14 June, 2022
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 675 of 2019
--------
Ranjeet Prabhakar, s/o Sri Ashutosh Mandal, r/o village-Taratand,
PO-Khukhra, PS-Pirtand, District-Giridih. ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Rajbhasa and Administrative Reform, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office situated at Project Building, PO & PS-
Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi.
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, Ranchi.
Office of Respondent No.2 to 4 is situated at Kalinagar,
Chaibagan, Namkom, PO & PS-Namkom, Dist-Ranchi.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Ankit Apurva, AC to Sr. SC-I
For the Respondent-JSSC : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate
Ms. Madhu Priya, Advocate
--------
ORDER
14th June 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The appellant who was the writ petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 26th August 2019 by which his prayer seeking a direction upon the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Forest Guard under BC-I or BC-II category was rejected by the writ Court.
2. The stand taken by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission before the writ Court was that the appellant was considered under general category as he failed to submit a 2 L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 "valid" caste certificate under BC-II category within the stipulated time.
3. Briefly stated, Advertisement No. 3 of 2014 was issued on 5th November 2014 by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission inviting applications for appointment on the post of Forest Guard in different districts of the State of Jharkhand. The total posts under different categories for the district of Giridih were as under:
Unreserved - 91
ST - 22
SC - 24
BC-I - 25
BC-II - 20
4. The appellant qualified in the preliminary test as well as Mains examination and was called for physical and medical examination which were scheduled to be held from 7 th December 2016. At this stage, this is relevant to record that by a resolution dated 18th December 2015 caste category in the State of Jharkhand was re-structured and "Sundi" was brought in the list of BC-I from BC-II - the appellant belongs to "Sundi" caste. After physical and medical examination of the successful candidates was conducted, a notice was published online on 18 th January 2017 that verification of the certificates was scheduled between 23rd January 2017 and 27th January 2017. It is not in dispute that the appellant who was called on 24th January 2017 for verification of the certificates submitted caste certificate of BC-I issued on 26 th December 2016. This caste certificate of BC-I appears to have been accepted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as in the defective list published by the Commission the appellant's application was not included. The final result was published on 24th May 2017 which, however, did not include name of the appellant and, therefore, he made enquiries whereupon he was informed that as he failed to submit caste certificate under BC-II category he was treated as a general category candidate in which 3 L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 category he did not qualify. It further appears that the appellant submitted representation and was offered an opportunity to submit caste certificate which he again furnished on 31 st May 2017.
5. In the aforesaid factual background, Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant who could not have furnished caste certificate under BC-II category in which he had made application for appointment on the post of Forest Guard should not have been insisted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to furnish a certificate of BC-II as by virtue of resolution dated 18 th December 2015 caste category of the appellant had changed to BC-I from BC-II. Plainly speaking, the plea raised at Bar is that no one can be asked to perform impossible work.
6. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellant, with reference to the judgment in "Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr." (2016) 4 SCC 754 would submit that a person acquires the caste by birth and not by acquisition and, therefore, the appellant who was categorized under BC-I category could not have procured a caste certificate under BC-II category after resolution dated 18 th December 2015 was issued.
7. In "Ram Kumar Gijroya" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. In Pushpa, relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11. ... '15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-6-1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including SC category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category, the requirement is that a person should belong to SC category. If a person is SC he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 4 L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved."
8. In the affidavit dated 14th June 2022 filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, it is stated that the last selected candidate under general category had obtained 60.48% marks, and the cut-off marks for BC-I category was 49.79% and BC-II category was 56.18% whereas the appellant secured 59.96% marks. We further find that while the selection process pursuant to Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination 2014 was in progress a resolution dated 18 th December 2015 was issued by the State of Jharkhand whereunder Sundi caste has been included under BC-I category. As we can gather from paragraph no.5 of the writ Court's order, the appellant submitted a caste certificate under BC-I category issued on 26 th December 2016 and this fact has not been denied by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.
9. The aforesaid facts of this case are not in dispute and the only issue which falls for consideration is whether a candidate who obtained more marks than cut-off marks for both the reserved categories could have been denied appointment on the post of Forest Guard on technical objections.
10. It is not in dispute that after 18 th December 2015 the appellant came under BC-I category and while so all that he could have done was to produce caste certificate under the said category and not under BC-II category. The caste certificate under BC-I category issued on 26th December 2016 furnished by the appellant was accepted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, however, it insisted that the appellant who had applied under BC-II category must furnish a caste certificate under the same category. In our opinion, such insistence of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission was improper. The fault lies with the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission which did not issue any corrigendum in the light of resolution dated 18 th December 2015 5 L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 inviting the applicants to modify their caste category, if necessary. On the contrary, it processed the applications as per the declarations made by the applicants as regards their caste category, which in some cases as in the case of the appellant had changed on 18th December 2015. As we have noticed above, the appellant secured 59.96% marks which is more than 10% marks over and above the marks secured by the last selected candidate under BC-I category - cut-off marks was 49.79% for BC-I. Even the cut-off marks for BC-II was less than the marks secured by the appellant. We further find that this is not a plea set up by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission that the appellant who qualified in the preliminary and Mains examinations under BC-II category had not secured enough marks for being qualified under BC-I category.
11. The writ Court did not consider the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case and the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission went by a stipulation in the advertisement that when a candidate fails to submit caste certificate he shall be treated as a general category candidate. The writ Court did not address itself to the relevant considerations in the case and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that even a select list candidate has no right to claim appointment.
12. The writ Court has held as under:
"13. In the backdrop of these admitted factual aspect, if the petitioner has not been selected finally for appointment, it cannot be said to be improper.
It is well settled position of law that merely on coming name in the merit list does not create any indefeasible right in favour of a candidate.
Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 wherein by taking aid of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 holds that mere inclusion of the candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected.
The judgment rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532 wherein at paragraph 10 it has been laid down that 6 L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 merely inclusion of the candidate finds place in the select list it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well.
14. Herein also, final appointment of the petitioner was subject to scrutiny of the certificates, as would appear from condition no. 3 stipulated in the advertisement and admittedly the caste certificate has been found to be not issued by the competent authority and on the date of scrutiny category of the petitioner changed to BC-I from BC-II category. Consideration of candidature entirely depends upon the details furnished by the petitioner in the application and if the decision would be taken even by way of policy decision, the details furnished on the date of submission of application would be treated and accordingly documents has to be considered.
15. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of mentioned herein above, merely appearing name in the merit list would not create any indefeasible right, hence, the petitioner since has not been able to satisfy the authority at the time of scrutiny of the certificates, so far it relates to caste certificate under BC-II category having not been issued by the competent authority, the decision taken by the recruiting agency by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any reason."
13. In our opinion, the writ Court proceeded on a wrong premise and failed to appreciate that the case set up by the appellant was of wrong exclusion from selection. The grievance of the appellant is that it was on account of a mistake committed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission that his candidature was considered under general category, though he belongs to BC-I category for which he had submitted valid caste certificate. Even otherwise, the writ Court should have exercised equitable jurisdiction to grant relief to the appellant that he deserved.
14. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ Court is guided by not only the statutory law but also by the principles of justice and good conscience. A writ Court is a Court of law as well as Court of equity, which developed as a body of rules to avoid hardships arising from strict compliance of the common law. In India, the equitable principles have been given due consideration by the Courts wherever the justice demanded provided there was no express bar in statutory law [refer, "Comptroller and Auditor- General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan & Anr." (1986) 2 SCC 679].
15. We gather from the proceedings in the present Letters 7 L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 Patent Appeal that the learned State counsel has produced a chart disclosing number of unfilled vacancies. It is stated that there are still 4 vacancies under BC-I category and 5 vacancies in BC-II category which have remained unfilled. The appellant who secured 10% more marks than the last selected candidate under BC-I category and would also qualify for selection under BC-II category could not have been deprived of selection on the post of Forest Guard. We are conscious that acting pursuant to the recommendations made by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission appointments have been made. But for the reason that the appellant's exclusion from the merit list was illegal and the judgments referred to by the writ Court in paragraph no.13 are not applicable in the case, we hold that the appellant's right to claim appointment on the post of Forest Guard would not extinguish by afflux of time because there was no laches or delay on his part in raising his claim.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, the order dated 26th August 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3480 of 2017 is set-aside.
17. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission shall forward appropriate recommendation for appointment of the appellant on the post of Forest Guard under BC-I category. Such recommendation by the Commission shall be made within 4 weeks whereupon the State of Jharkhand shall act forthwith.
18. L.P.A No. 675 of 2019 is allowed and, consequently, W.P.(C) No. 3480 of 2017 is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) R.K/Amit