Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Rishi Kumar vs Jharkhand Public Service Commission ... on 27 February, 2015

Equivalent citations: 2015 (4) AJR 851

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W. P. (C) No. 842 of 2015

      Rishi Kumar, S/o­ Kashi Prasad Sahu, R/o­ Basantpur, PO Pogra, 
      PS Silli, Ranchi presently resides near Working Women Hostel, 
      Nagra Toli, PO&PS Lalpur, Ranchi                 ...   ...  Petitioner
                               Versus
      1.   Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its 
      Chairman, Circular Road, Lalpur,  Ranchi
      2.   Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular 
      Road, Lalpur, Ranchi 
      3.   Registrar, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular 
      Road, Lalpur, Ranchi
      4.   Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service 
      Commission, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi    ...  ... Respondents
                           -----------------
   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

      For the Petitioner          : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
      For the Respondents  : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
                        ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­   

02/27.02.2015

  Seeking  quashing  of  letter  dated  23.01.2015  issued  by Controller of Examination­respondent no. 4, the present writ  petition   has   been   filed   with   a   further   payer   seeking   direction  upon   the   respondents   to   consider   the   candidature   of   the  petitioner under BC­II category and for publishing the result of  the petitioner in the BC­II category.

2.  Advertisement no. 04/2013 was issued inviting application  for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The  petitioner   submitted   his   application   in   BC­II   category   and   he  appeared   in   preliminary  test   examination  held  on  13.04.2014.  The   petitioner   was   declared   successful   in   the   preliminary  examination and he was issued provisional admit card for the  Mains examination. The petitioner was declared successful in the  Mains   examination   also   and   he   was   directed   to   appear   in  2 interview on 19.12.2014 at 9.00 am.   The selected candidates  were   required   to   produce   original   certificates   including   the  original   caste   certificate   issued   by   a   competent   authority   not  below the rank of Sub­Divisional Officer. On 19.12.2014 when  the   petitioner   produced   his   original   certificates,   the   caste  certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Rahe Block  was not accepted and thereafter, on 21.01.2015, the petitioner  submitted another caste certificate for BC­II category issued by  the   Deputy   Commissioner,   Ranchi,   in   the   office   of   the  Examination   Controller,   Jharkhand   Public   Service   Commission.  Vide letter dated 23.01.2015, the petitioner was informed that  since   the   certificate   issued   by   him   was   not   in   terms   of   the  advertisement and as such his candidature was considered under  unreserved category. 

3.    Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4.    The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the  petitioner   appeared   in   the   examination   for   the   post   of   Civil  Judge  (Junior Division) and he was declared successful in the  preliminary examination, in which his result was declared under  BC­II   category.     Thereafter,   a   provisional   admit   card   for  appearing   in   the   Mains   examination   was   issued   for   BC­II  category   and   the   petitioner   was   declared   successful.     Merely,  because the certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued by  an   officer   below   the   rank   of   Sub   Divisional   Officer,   his  candidature   under   BC­II   category   has   not   been   accepted.  3 Though,   the   petitioner  has secured  277 marks  and the  cut­off  marks for BC­II category is 267, on a hyper technical ground, the  petitioner's   candidature   has   not   been   considered   under   the  reserved   category   and   therefore,   a   direction   is   required   to   be  issued to the respondents for considering the candidature of the  petitioner in BC­II category.

5.   As  against  the above, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, the learned  counsel   for   the   respondent­JPSC   submits   that   admittedly,   the  petitioner   did   not   submitted   appropriate   caste   certificate.     A  provisional   admit   card   is   issued   to   the   candidate   only   on   the  basis   of   the   form   submitted   by   a   candidate   and   at   that   stage  extensive scrutiny of the certificate submitted by a candidate is  not   carried   by   the   respondent­JPSC.     It   is   at   the   stage   of  interview   when   the   candidates   are   required   to   produce  certificates   when   the   original   certificates   produced   by   the  petitioner   were   examined   and   it   was   found   that   the   caste  certificate was not in terms of the advertisement and therefore,  the candidature of the petitioner was considered in the general  category. 

6.   I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned  counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

7.    In a case where thousands of candidates appear in the  examination,   no   distinction   can   be   made   between   a   minor  deficiency   and   a   major   deficiency.   A   candidate   is   required   to  submit an application strictly in terms of the advertisement and  4 if,   the   application   submitted   by   a   candidate   is   not   strictly   in  accordance   with   the   requirement   under   the   advertisement/  information brochure, the candidature of the candidates can be  rejected   at   any   stage.   Merely   because   the   petitioner   has   been  permitted to appear in the preliminary as well as in the Mains  examination   under   BC­II   category,   the   petitioner   cannot   claim  that   the   initial   deficiency   in   so   far   as,   caste   certificate   is  concerned,   has   been   ignored   by   the   respondents   and   the  respondents are under a duty to consider the candidature of the  petitioner under  BC­II category.   It  appears that  the petitioner  has   obtained   more   marks   than   the   cut­off   marks   for   BC­II  category however, I am of the opinion that Court cannot interfere  in individual cases though, it may appears to be a hard case.  In  the   advertisement   no.   04/2013   in   column   16(ii)   it   has   been  clearly   mentioned   that   the   candidates   are   required   to   submit  correctly filled application form with all educational certificates  including,  date  of birth and caste certificate, failing which the  application   would   be   rejected.     The   learned   counsel   for   the  petitioner   submits   that   vide   letter   dated   23.01.2015,   the  petitioner was informed that his claim for reservation cannot be  considered because, the OBC certificate was not in terms of the  advertisement and it has not been rejected on the ground that he  did   not submit caste­certificate of B.C. II.   I find that it is the  case of the petitioner that, he applied in BC­II category and it is a  matter   of   record   that   the   caste   certificate   submitted   by   the  5 petitioner was not for BC­II category besides, not being issued by  an officer of the rank of Sub Divisional Officer.   The petitioner  subsequently,   submitted   caste   certificate   issued   by   the   Deputy  Commissioner, Ranchi however, the said certificate was issued on  20.01.2015.   It   has   correctly   been   indicated   in   letter   dated  23.01.2015 that as on 10.01.2014 when the petitioner submitted  his application, he was not possessing a caste certificate in terms  of the advertisement.  

8.   Considering the above facts, I do not find any infirmity in  the   decision   communicated   to   the   petitioner   vide   letter   dated  23.01.2015. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/­