The Bihar Public Service Commission vs Dr. Sushma Sharan
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.472 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18940 of 2019
======================================================
1. The Bihar Public Service Commission through the Secretary, Bailey Road,
Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Sushma Sharan, daughter of Late M.C. Ram, Resident of C/C-56, P C
Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
….. Petitioner/Respondent
2. The State of Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, Medical, Education and Family Welfare Department
of Health, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
... ...Respondents/Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P. N. Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 30-10-2026
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment
dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC
No.18940 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the respondents
have been directed to consider the case of the respondent no.1
for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
2/26
department of Obstetrics and Gynecology under scheduled caste
category on the basis of her merit, if she is found otherwise
suitable and then it has been directed that she shall be offered
appointment from the date similarly placed persons having
lower merit than her have been appointed, however without all
consequential benefits, except what has been specified in the
said judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement
bearing No.20/2017 was published by the Bihar Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the BPSC”) for
appointment of 74 Assistant Professors in various Medical
Colleges and Hospitals, out of which 13 posts were reserved for
scheduled caste category and out of the said 13 posts, 5 posts
were earmarked for female candidates. The respondent no.1 had
applied in pursuance to the said advertisement published in the
year 2017 for being appointed on the post of Assistant Professor
in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology under the
scheduled caste category along with the requisite documents and
caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer vide
Certificate No.1598 dated 02.08.2006. The application of the
respondent no.1 was then scrutinized and upon finding the same
to be in order, the BPSC had issued interview letter to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
3/26
respondent no.1, whereafter the respondent no.1 had appeared in
the interview on 28.02.2018. Thereafter, all the requisite original
documents, including caste certificate of the respondent no.1
were also verified. The result of successful candidates was
published on 08.08.2019, however the name of the respondent
no.1 did not find place under the scheduled caste category.
3. The respondent no.1 had pleaded in the writ petition that
she is daughter of Late Mahim Chand Ram, who belongs to the
scheduled caste category, as is apparent from the caste
certificate dated 17.08.2019, issued by the Circle Officer, Patna
Sadar, apart from the fact that her husband, namely Ganga
Sharan also belongs to scheduled caste category. The respondent
no.1 being aggrieved on account of her not being selected as
Assistant Professor in the department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology under the scheduled caste category in connection
with Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 had filed a writ petition
bearing CWJC No.18940 of 2019, inter alia praying therein to
direct the respondents to declare the result of the respondent
no.1 against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category
in connection with Advertisement No.20 of 2017.
4. The BPSC had filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
4/26
before the writ Court stating therein that Advertisement Nos.
7/2017 to 31/2017 were issued on the basis of requisition
received from the Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar dated
26.02.2016, in terms of Bihar Health Service Recruitment
Rules, 2008 and Revised Rules, 2013 whereby and whereunder
altogether 1171 posts of Assistant Professor were requisitioned
in different faculties of Medical Colleges & Hospitals as also
under the Health Department, Govt. of Bihar. It had been further
stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent no.1 had
applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology in connection with Advertisement
No.20/2017 and finding her to be eligible, she was allotted Roll
No.200016 under the scheduled caste category. Thereafter,
interview was held in between 26.02.2018 to 28.02.2018,
whereafter a combined merit list was prepared on the basis of
academic marks and interview marks of the candidates and then
result of 37 successful candidates was published on 08.08.2019,
however the respondent no.1 was unsuccessful because of her
lower merit position in the unreserved category. It is submitted
that the candidature of respondent no.1 was not considered
under the reserved category since she had submitted her caste
certificate issued in the name of her husband which should have
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
5/26
been in the name of her father. The minutes of meeting
convened on 08.08.2019 of all the members of the Commission
was also produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the
BPSC wherein the case of the respondent no.1 was discussed
and it had been observed that during the course of verification
of the application forms/certificates/documents of the candidates
at the level of the commission, it was found that the married
females belonging to reserved category had submitted non-
creamy layer certificate/caste certificate containing the name of
husband instead of father, hence for rectification of the same,
one chance was given to the candidates by publishing notice in
the daily newspaper and on the website of the Commission on
16.07.2018 & 21.07.2018 so that correct certificate could be
submitted on 06.08.2018 or 07.08.2018, failing which
candidature of such candidates would be considered/included in
the unreserved category.
5. The learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned
judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed in CWJC No.18940 of 2019
has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to
consider the case of the respondent no.1 herein for appointment
on the post of Assistant Professor in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
6/26
on the basis of her merit on the following grounds: -
(i) The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Aarav Jain vs. the Bihar Public Service Commission
& Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4242 of 2022) and connected
civil appeals wherein one of the appellant, namely Anita
Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 4247 of 2022) had applied
under the category of SC (female) but at the time of
interview, she had submitted a caste certificate which
contained the name of her husband but later on, she had
submitted a caste certificate mentioning the name of her
father, however her candidature was not considered under
the scheduled caste category. Nonetheless, the Hon’ble
Apex Court by a judgment dated 23.05.2022 held in
paragraph nos.14 to 16 as follows :-
“14. Upon such submissions, it has been submitted
that the decision of the Commission rejecting their
candidature was per se illegal, unwarranted,
unreasonable and too harsh. All the eight
appellants who were duly qualified and duly
selected have been deprived of their appointment
as Judicial Officers. Admittedly, all the Appellants
had secured more marks than the last selected
candidate in their respective category. It is further
submitted that even the High Court committed an
error in dismissing their petitions.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
7/26
15. On the other hand, it has been submitted on
behalf of the BPSC and the State that they could
not relax any of the condition which were
mentioned in the advertisement or their brochure
or the interview call letter at different stages. Any
such relaxation would amount to not following
their own prescribed procedure which was not
within their domain. It is also submitted that
appellants knowing fully well the condition
regarding submission of the original Certificates/
Documents at the time of interview having failed to
do so, their candidature was rightly rejected.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, without entering into the respective argument
we are of the considered view that the rejection of
the candidates was improper, unjustified and not
warranted. We have also taken note of the fact that
there are vacancies available, which if filled up by
meritorious candidates would only be an asset for
the institution helping in disposal of cases pending
in huge numbers.”
(ii) The learned Single Judge has also relied on a
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman Jee & Ors., reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 779 wherein it has been held that as far as
production of necessary certificates, in order to avail the
benefit of reserved category, etc. is concerned, there can
be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof
and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it
pertains in the domain of procedure as also every
infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
8/26
not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
(iii) The status of an SC/ST and OBC candidate cannot
be denied and such candidate cannot be forced to be
treated as a general category candidate, hence the action
of the BPSC in treating the respondent no.1 herein as a
general category candidate is wrong.
(iv) The Appointing Authorities should give due
weightage to a caste certificate issued by the authorities
and if an earlier certificate is not in conformity with the
latest guidelines, it does not mean that the candidate has
lost its status of being from SC/ST category or from EBC
or other reserved categories, hence on account of such
reasons, a candidate cannot be denied his/her rightful
claim in his/her own category.
(v) The State Government issues certificate to the person
belonging to SC, ST, EBC, BC and other categories,
hence the responsibility lies with the officers of the
Government to issue certificates which are acceptable to
the employment units and to the selecting bodies, who
follow their instructions.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
9/26
CWJC No.18940 of 2019, the BPSC/appellants have filed the
present appeal.
7. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has submitted
by referring to the caste certificate dated 02.08.2016, produced
by the respondent no.1 herein that the same has been issued by
the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna Sadar whereas the
advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidate belonging to
SC/ST category is required to produce caste certificate issued by
the concerned Circle Officer. It is also submitted that the said
prescription has also been mentioned in the interview letter
issued to the respondent no.1, however still the respondent no.1
had not produced any caste certificate issued by the concerned
Circle Officer. It is next submitted that the caste certificate dt.
17.08.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna has
been produced for the first time in the writ petition filed by the
respondent no.1 herein on 20.08.2019, hence the same cannot be
taken into consideration. Nonetheless, the learned Sr. Counsel
for the BPSC has referred to the minutes of meeting convened
on 08.08.2019 of all the members of the Commission wherein
the case of the respondent no.1 has been discussed and it has
been observed that during the course of verification of the
application forms/certificates/documents of the candidates at the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
10/26
level of the commission, it was found that married females
belonging to reserved category had submitted non-creamy layer
certificate/caste certificate containing the name of husband
instead of father, hence for rectification of the same, one chance
was given to the candidates by publishing notice in the daily
newspaper and on the website of the Commission on 16.07.2018
& 21.07.2018 so that correct certificate could be submitted on
06.08.2018 or 07.08.2018, failing which candidature of such
candidates were to be considered in the unreserved category.
8. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
BPSC that on account of the fact that the caste certificate
furnished by the respondent no.1 contains the name of her
husband instead of her father, the candidature of the respondent
no.1 was considered in the merit-list of unreserved category,
hence she could not succeed since under the unreserved
category cut-off marks was 37.50 whereas the respondent no.1
had secured only 29 marks and was placed at merit position 50,
however the last candidate in the unreserved category was
placed at merit position 27. The learned Sr. Counsel for the
appellants has submitted that as far as the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aarav Jain (supra) is
concerned, the same is confined to the facts and circumstances
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
11/26
of the said case only, hence the same cannot be treated as a
precedent. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has,
however relied on a judgment rendered by the learned Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad vs. the
State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 34 , more
particularly to paragraph no.26 thereof to contend that it has
been held therein that where the advertisement specifies the last
date for filing of supporting or other documents and that date
must be given effect to, thus any document received after such
date shall be rejected by the selecting authority.
9. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has next relied
upon a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Vandana Govindam vs. the State of Bihar &
Ors. , reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 585 to contend that every
candidate seeking employment in public service has to abide by
the terms and conditions of advertisement and caste certificate
submitted after the date of interview cannot be entertained, thus
since the caste certificate produced by the respondent no.1 was
not issued by the competent authority, as required as per the
stipulation in the Advertisement No.20/2017 and moreover,
since the caste certificate of the respondent no.1 contains the
name of her husband instead of her father, her candidature has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
12/26
rightly been placed in the unreserved category, therefore the
impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023 is required to be set aside.
10. Per contra , the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
no.1 has submitted that the only ground on which the
respondent no.1 has been declared to be unsuccessful in the
aforesaid recruitment process is that caste certificate which she
had submitted does not contain the name of her father but
instead contains the name of her husband. In this connection, it
is submitted that a bare perusal of the entire Advertisement No.
20/2017 would show that no such stipulation has been
prescribed anywhere regarding the requirement of furnishing a
caste certificate containing the name of the father of a candidate,
which has also been admitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
BPSC to be non-existent. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 that not only the
father of the respondent no.1, but also the husband of
respondent no.1 belongs to scheduled caste category and neither
there is any objection on this score nor any allegation has been
levelled by the BPSC regarding either the father or the husband
of the respondent no.1 not belonging to the scheduled caste
category. As regards the issue raised by the learned Sr. Counsel
for the BPSC to the effect that the case certificate ought to have
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
13/26
been issued by the concerned Circle Officer whereas the same
has been issued by the concerned Sub-divisional Officer, it has
been submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent
no.1 that the minutes of meeting convened on 08.08.2019 of all
the members of the Commission would show that respondent
no.1 had been put under unreserved category not for this reason
but on account of the fact that the caste certificate furnished by
the respondent no.1 contains the name of her husband instead of
her father. However, it is submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel
for the respondent no.1 that in any view of the matter, the Sub-
divisional Officer is an officer higher in rank to the Circle
Officer and the caste certificate is of the year 2006, when the
competent authority for issuing caste certificate was the
concerned Sub-divisional Officer and not the Circle Officer,
thus once the caste certificate has been issued by the competent
officer/authority, the same cannot be brushed aside by the
appointing authority and in fact due weightage ought to be given
to such a certificate, inasmuch as the caste certificate being not
in conformity with the latest guideline would not mean that the
candidate has lost its status of belonging to scheduled caste
category, thus on such trivial issue the candidature of the
respondent no.1 could not have been put under the unreserved
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
14/26
category. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 has
next referred to the caste certificate dated 17.08.2019 issued by
the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna wherein the name of the
father of the petitioner has been mentioned, hence it is
submitted that the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed
by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with and in view
the vacancies still being there, the respondent no.1 is required to
be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the
department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that it is apparent
from the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings that five
seats have remained vacant thus the respondent no.1 can very
well be accommodated.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 has also
referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board & Anr. , reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 , to
submit that it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
candidature of those candidates, who belong to SC/ST
categories cannot be rejected simply on account of late
submission of caste certificate, inasmuch as the same would
amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
15/26
Articles, 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. It
would be apposite to reproduce paragraph nos.15 to 18 of the
judgment rendered in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra),
herein below:-
“ 15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this
Court in Indra Sawhney [ Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] has been extracted in
Pushpa [ Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) , 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 281] along with the speech delivered by Dr
Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and reads thus:
( Pushpa case , SCC OnLine Del para 9)
“9. … ‘251. Referring to the concept of equality of
opportunity in public employment, as embodied in
Article 10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally
emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the
conflicting claims of various communities for
representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar
emphatically declared that reservation should be
confined to “a minority of seats”, lest the very concept
of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great
importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the
Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this
judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it.
Dr Ambedkar stated:
“… firstly, that there shall be equality of
opportunity, secondly, that there shall be
reservations in favour of certain communities which
have not so far had a ‘proper look-in’ so to say into
the administration. … Supposing, for instance, we
were to concede in full the demand of those
communities who have not been so far employed in
the public services to the fullest extent, what would
really happen is, we shall be completely destroying
the first proposition upon which we are all agreed,
namely, that there shall be an equality of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
16/26
opportunity. … Therefore the seats to be reserved, if
the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause
(1) of Article 10, [ Ed. : The matter between two
asterisks has been emphasised in Indra Sawhney
case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.] must be confined to
a minority of seats [ Ed. : The matter between two
asterisks has been emphasised in Indra Sawhney
case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.]. It is then only that
the first principle could find its place in the
Constitution and effective in operation. … we have
to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of
equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy
the demand of communities which have not had so
far representation in the State….” [Constituent
Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-02 (1948-1949).]
These words embody the raison d'être of reservation
and its limitations. Reservation is one of the
measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the
continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming
from discriminatory practices against various
classes of people which have resulted in their social,
educational and economic backwardness.
Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present
social, educational and economic backwardness
caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To
attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of
such injustice, the Constitution permits and
empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even
when they have discriminatory and exclusionary
effects. Any such measure, insofar as one group is
preferred to the exclusion of another, must
necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement
of the fundamental constitutional goal.’ (Indra
Sawhney case [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], SCC, para 251)”
16. In Pushpa , relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh
[1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092] have also been extracted,
which read thus:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
17/26
“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 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.
16. While taking a particular view in such matters one
has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of
SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate
prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are
enabling provisions authorising the Government to
make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST
categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend
to remove social and economic inequality to make
equal opportunities available in reality. Social and
economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of
society. The right in social and economic justice
envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the
fundamental rights and directive principles of the
Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38,
39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the
poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
18/26
society meaningful.’ (Tej Pal Singh case [Tej Pal Singh
v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092]”
17. Further, in Pushpa [2009 SCC OnLine Del 281],
relevant portion from the judgment of Valsamma Paul
case [ Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University , (1996) 3 SCC
545] has also been extracted, which reads as under:
“11. … ‘17. … “21. The Constitution through its
Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles
created a secular State based on the principle of
equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance
between the rights of the individuals and the duty and
commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian
social order.”
18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in
Pushpa [2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] is in conformity
with the position of law laid down by this Court, which
have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the
High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the
binding precedent on the question laid down by the
Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney
[Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC
217] and Valsamma Paul [(1996) 3 SCC 545] wherein
this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and
39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that
the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and
educationally and socially backward classes of the
society is to remove inequality in public employment, as
candidates belonging to these categories are unable to
compete with the candidates belonging to the general
category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and
deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of
reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution
as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive
principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of
giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The
Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
19/26
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not
only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has
failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of
this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] and Valsamma Paul
[Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC
545]. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order [Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Ram Kumar
Gijroya, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 472] passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside
and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated
24-11-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram
Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), WP (C) No. 382 of 2009,
order dated 24-11-2010 (Del)] is hereby restored.”
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record from which it is clear that an
advertisement bearing No.20/2017 was published by the BPSC
for appointment of 74 Assistant Professors in various Medical
Colleges and Hospitals, out of which 13 posts were reserved for
scheduled caste category and out of the said 13 posts, 5 posts
were earmarked for female candidates. The respondent no.1 had
applied in pursuance to the said advertisement for being
appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category
along with the requisite documents and caste certificate issued
by the Sub-divisional Officer vide Certificate No.1598 dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
20/26
02.08.2006. The application of the respondent no.1 was
scrutinized and upon finding the same to be in order, the BPSC
had issued interview letter to her, whereafter she had appeared
in the interview on 28.02.2018. Thereafter, all the requisite
original documents, including caste certificate of the respondent
no.1 were verified. The result of successful candidates was
published on 08.08.2019, however the name of the respondent
no.1 did not find place under the scheduled caste category.
13. The respondent no.1 being aggrieved on account of her
not being selected as Assistant Professor in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category
in connection with Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 had filed a
writ petition bearing CWJC No.18940 of 2019, inter alia
praying therein to direct the respondents to declare the result of
the respondent no.1 against the aforesaid post under the
scheduled caste category. The respondent no.1 has pleaded in
the writ petition that she is daughter of Late Mahim Chand Ram,
who belongs to the scheduled caste category, as is apparent from
the caste certificate dated 17.08.2019, issued by the Circle
Officer, Patna Sadar, apart from the fact that her husband,
namely Ganga Sharan also belongs to scheduled caste category.
14. The BPSC had filed a counter affidavit to the aforesaid
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
21/26
writ petition stating therein that Advertisement Nos. 7/2017 to
31/2017 were issued on the basis of requisition received from
the Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar dt. 26.2.2016, in terms
of Bihar Health Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 and Revised
Rules, 2013. As far as the respondent no.1 is concerned, she had
applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology in connection with Advertisement
No.20/2017 and finding her to be eligible, she was allotted Roll
No.200016 under the scheduled caste category, whereafter,
interview was held and then a combined merit list was prepared
on the basis of academic marks and interview marks of the
candidates. The result of 37 successful candidates was then
published on 08.08.2019, however the respondent no.1 was
unsuccessful because of her lower merit position in the
unreserved category. The candidature of respondent no.1 is
stated to have not been considered under the reserved category
since she had submitted her caste certificate issued in the name
of her husband which should have been in the name of her
father. The minutes of meeting convened on 08.8.2019 has been
referred to, wherein it has been observed that during the course
of verification of application forms/certificates/ documents of
the candidates at the level of the commission, it was found that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
22/26
the married females belonging to reserved category had
submitted non-creamy layer certificate/caste certificate
containing the name of husband instead of father, hence for
rectification of the same, one chance was given to the
candidates by publishing notice in the daily newspaper and on
the website of the Commission so that correct certificate could
be submitted, failing which it was postulated that the
candidature of such candidates would be considered in the
unreserved category. Thus, the candidature of the respondent
no.1 was considered under the unreserved category since she
had submitted her caste certificate issued in the name of her
husband which should have been in the name of her father, thus
she was unsuccessful because of her lower merit position in the
unreserved category.
15. The learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned
judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed in CWJC No.18940 of 2019
has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to
consider the case of the respondent no.1 for appointment on the
post of Assistant Professor in the department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology under the scheduled caste category on the basis of
her merit. The said judgment dated 14.02.2023 is under
challenge in the present appeal, filed by the appellants/BPSC.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
23/26
16. Having heard the Ld. Senior Counsels for the parties, we
find that the issue which is required to be decided in the present
appeal is as to whether non-mentioning of the name of the father
of the respondent no.1 in the caste certificate dated 02.08.2006
and instead mentioning the name of her husband would entail
consideration of the candidature of the respondent no.1 under
the unreserved category. To this, our answer is in negative, for
the reason that a bare perusal of the entire terms and conditions
mentioned in the aforesaid Advertisement No.20/2007 would
show that no such condition is prescribed therein, i.e. to the
effect that the caste certificate to be submitted by the SC/ST
candidate should contain the name of the father of the candidate
and not the husband of a married female candidate.
17. Yet another ancillary issue which arises for consideration
is as to whether the caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional
Officer, Patna Sadar dated 02.08.2006 would be a relevant proof
of the factum of the respondent no.1 belonging to scheduled
caste category or not, especially in absence of such caste
certificate having been issued by the Circle Officer, which in
any view of the matter was subsequently issued by the Circle
Officer, Patna Sadar on 17.08.2019 containing the name of the
father of the respondent no.1 as well. In this regard, we would
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
24/26
first of all refer to the judgment rendered by the learned Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad (supra),
paragraph no.26 (d) whereof is reproduced herein below:-
“ 26. ( d) In appropriate cases where this Court is satisfied
that a case of extreme hardship or injustice has resulted
on account of factors beyond the control of the concerned
candidate, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
may grant relief in deserving cases. But in doing so, the
Court must be satisfied that the candidate concerned has
acted diligently, and is not guilty of delay or laches in
taking necessary steps for procuring the requisite
certificates etc. However, no relief shall be granted where
the requisite certificate is produced for the first time after
the process of selection is complete and the selecting
authority has made its recommendation.”
18. Thus, it is apparent from what has been held by the
learned Full Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in the
case of Braj Kishore Prasad (supra), as aforesaid that the
powers of the writ court are not fettered, thus it may grant relief
in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in deserving cases and this is
exactly what has been done by the writ court in the present case.
19. It is a well-settled law that a certificate issued by the
competent authority regarding a person belonging to a
scheduled caste category by birth is only an affirmation of the
fact which is already in existence and the purpose of such
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
25/26
certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion
of the candidate that he/she belongs to the scheduled caste
category and act thereon by giving benefit to such candidate for
him belonging to the scheduled caste category. In the present
case, it is not denied by the authorities of the BPSC that the
respondent no.1 does not belong to the scheduled caste category,
thus keeping in mind the objective behind the post of SC/ST
category, as per the constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles
15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which are enabling
provisions, authorising the Government to make special
provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories and taking
into account the object of providing reservation to educationally
and socially backward scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,
i.e. to remove the inequality in public employment as the
candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete
with candidates belonging to general category, the candidature
of respondent no.1 could not have been rejected as a scheduled
caste category candidate merely on the ground of non-existent
technicalities/reasons, though it has not been disputed by the
appellants that the Sub-divisional Officer, who had issued the
caste certificate dated 02.08.2006, is an officer higher in rank to
the Circle Officer, apart from the fact that the respondent no.1
Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026
26/26
had also produced the caste certificate issued by the Circle
Officer, Patna Sadar dated 17.08.2019, which has been annexed
to the writ petition.
20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in
the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWJC No.18940 of 2019, hence the present
appeal stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 03.08.2026
Uploading Date 30 .10.2026
Transmission Date NA