VIVEK KUMAR vs THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD

2026: JHHC:26910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1333 of 2024
……

Vivek Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Ashok Prasad,
resident of Baniya Tola, Chowk Bazar, P.O. & P.S.-Gola,
District-Ramgarh. …. Petitioner(s)
-VERSUS-
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfield
Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfield Limited,
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi.
3. The General Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfield
Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi.
4. The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfield Limited,
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi.
5. The General Manager (HRD), Central Coalfield Limited,
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi. …..Respondent (s)
……

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. A.K. Das, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
……
C.A.V. ON 18/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:07/09/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction upon the respondents to consider his candidature
for appointment to the post of Electrician (Non-
Excavation)/Technician against the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
category and, consequently, to permit him to participate in
the process of medical examination and appointment.
Factual Metrix:
1

2026: JHHC:26910
3. The respondent-Central Coalfields Limited issued an
employment notice dated 28.03.2023 inviting applications for
various posts, including the post of Electrician (Non-
Excavation)/Technician. In all, 126 posts were advertised for
the said post, out of which 03 posts were reserved for
candidates belonging to the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
category. Clause 7 of the employment notice prescribed the
documents required to be furnished by the candidates and,
inter alia, required candidates claiming reservation under the
OBC (NCL) category to submit a self-attested legible
photocopy of the caste certificate. The advertisement also
contained a specific stipulation, with reference to the Office
Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India, dated 31.03.2016, regarding
the validity of the certificate relating to creamy-layer status.
4. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid post and
participated in the recruitment process. His application was
submitted online on 17.04.2023. The petitioner relies upon
an OBC certificate dated 15.04.2023 and contends that,
being the latest certificate available at the time of submission
of his application, the same satisfied the requirement
contained in Clause 7 of the employment notice.
5. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the
Computer Based Test and, having qualified therein, his name
2

2026: JHHC:26910
found place in the provisional list. Thereafter, by
communication dated 23.12.2023, the petitioner was called
for document verification. The said communication
specifically required candidates claiming reservation under
the OBC (NCL) category to produce the requisite certificate
relating to the financial year 2022–23.
6. It is the case of the respondents that, at the stage of
document verification, the petitioner produced an OBC (NCL)
certificate dated 12.04.2023. The respondents found the said
certificate not acceptable for the purpose of extending the
benefit of OBC (NCL) reservation, as the certificate did not
establish the petitioner s non-creamy-layer status for the
’
relevant financial year 2022–23. The respondents have
further relied upon Clause 4 of the said certificate, which
states that the certificate would remain valid for one year
from the date of its issuance.
7. The petitioner was consequently not included
amongst the candidates shortlisted for the subsequent stage
of medical examination and appointment. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction
upon the respondents to accept his candidature on the basis
of the certificate relied upon by him and to permit him to
proceed with the recruitment process and appointment.
3

2026: JHHC:26910
8. The respondents have contested the writ petition by
filing a counter affidavit. Their specific stand is that the
requirement of establishing OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) status
for the relevant financial year was not a condition introduced
for the first time at the stage of document verification, but
was preferable to the terms of the original employment notice
read with the Government of India guidelines expressly
referred to therein. It has further been contended that the
certificate produced by the petitioner did not establish his
non-creamy-layer status for the financial year 2022–23 and,
therefore, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of
reservation merely on the basis of a certificate issued on
12.04.2023.
9. It is in the aforesaid factual background, the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
fall for consideration.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

10. The case of the petitioner, as argued by Mr. Manoj
Tandon, Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner, is that the
respondents have acted arbitrarily and illegally in not
considering his candidature. It has been submitted that
Clause 7 of the employment notice required the candidates to
produce a self-attested legible photocopy of the latest caste
certificate in case of a candidate claiming benefit under the
4

2026: JHHC:26910
OBC (NCL) category. According to the petitioner, his
application was submitted online on 17.04.2023 and the
caste certificate produced by him was dated 15.04.2023 and,
therefore, was the latest certificate available to him.
11. It has been further submitted that the employment
notice did not stipulate that the candidate was required to
possess an OBC (NCL) certificate specifically pertaining to the
financial year 2022–23. It is thus contended that the
respondents could not introduce such a condition
subsequently at the stage of document verification, as that
would amount to changing the rules of the game after
commencement of the selection process.
12. In support of his contention, Mr. Tandon has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in
’
the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh ,
reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 , and the Constitution Bench
judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of
Rajasthan , reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 , particularly
paragraphs 16 and 36 thereof. It has been submitted that the
principle that the criteria of selection cannot be altered
midway through the recruitment process is now well settled
and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for
appointment on the basis of the certificate dated 15.04.2023.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent
5

2026: JHHC:26910
13. Per contra , Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Ld. Sr. Counsel
appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.
It has been submitted that the advertisement dated
28.03.2021 invited applications for, inter alia, the post of
Electrician (Non-Excavation)/Technician, against which 126
posts were advertised, including 03 posts reserved for OBC
(NCL) candidates.
14. It has been pointed out that Clause 7 of the
advertisement required candidates claiming reservation
under the OBC (NCL) category to furnish the requisite
certificate and, significantly, the advertisement itself
contained a specific clarification, with reference to the
Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training
guidelines dated 31.03.2016, that the certificate relating to
creamy-layer status is valid only for the financial year in
which the certificate is issued.
15. It is the specific case of the respondents that the
petitioner was permitted to participate in the Computer
Based Test and his name was included in the provisional list.
Thereafter, when he was called for document verification by
letter dated 23.12.2023, the candidates claiming reservation
under the OBC (NCL) category were specifically required to
produce the requisite certificate for the financial year 2022–
23.
6

2026: JHHC:26910
16. The respondents have further stated that the
certificate submitted by the petitioner at the stage of
document verification was dated 12.04.2023 and, by its own
terms, was stated to be valid for one year from the date of its
issuance. According to the respondents, the said certificate
did not certify the petitioner s non-creamy-layer status for the
’
relevant financial year 2022–23 and, consequently, could not
be accepted for extending the benefit of reservation.
17. It has also been submitted that the requirement
relating to the relevant financial year was not introduced for
the first time at the stage of document verification, but flowed
from the advertisement itself and the Government of India
guidelines expressly referred to therein. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in
’
Divya v. Union of India & Others , reported in (2024) 1 SCC
448 , and Union Public Service Commission v. Gaurav
Singh & Others , reported in (2024) 2 SCC 605 .
18. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and
after perusing the records of the case, it transpires that the
short question which arises for consideration is “whether the
respondents, by requiring the petitioner to produce an OBC
(NCL) certificate relatable to the relevant financial year, have
7

2026: JHHC:26910
impermissibly altered the eligibility criteria after
commencement of the recruitment process” .
19. The contention of the petitioner proceeds principally
on the expression Latest Caste Certificate” occurring in
“
Clause 7 of the advertisement. This Court is of the view; the
said expression cannot be read in isolation or divorced from
the remaining stipulations contained in the very same clause.
The advertisement was not merely concerned with the fact
that a candidate belonged to the OBC category. The benefit
claimed by the petitioner was specifically the benefit of OBC
(Non-Creamy Layer) reservation .
20. The distinction between an ordinary caste certificate
and a certificate establishing the requisite non-creamy-layer
status is material. The entitlement to reservation under the
OBC (NCL) category depends not merely upon membership of
the notified OBC community but also upon satisfaction of the
non-creamy-layer condition in accordance with the applicable
Government of India guidelines.
21. Significantly, the advertisement itself referred to the
applicable DoPT guidelines and specifically indicated that the
certificate relating to “creamy-layer status” would be valid
only for the financial year in which the certificate was issued.
Therefore, the requirement relating to the relevant financial
8

2026: JHHC:26910
year cannot be characterized as a new condition introduced
by the respondents after commencement of the selection
process. It was a requirement inherent in, and referable to,
the terms of the advertisement itself.
22. The judgment in K. Manjusree (supra) undoubtedly
lays down the salutary principle that an authority conducting
a recruitment process cannot introduce a new criterion of
selection after the process has commenced, particularly
where such alteration has the effect of changing the basis on
which candidates were evaluated. The said principle has
subsequently been authoritatively considered by the
Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra).
23. The Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak
(supra) has reaffirmed that the eligibility criteria notified at
the commencement of recruitment ordinarily cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process.
At the same time, the said principle does not prevent
the recruiting authority from enforcing an eligibility
requirement which was already contained in the governing
rules or advertisement. The present case falls in the latter
category.
24. In the present matter, the respondents have not
altered the post, reservation structure, qualification, method
of selection or any benchmark of merit after commencement
9

2026: JHHC:26910
of the recruitment process. Nor have they introduced a fresh
condition which was wholly absent from the advertisement.
They have merely required the petitioner, who seeks the
benefit of OBC (NCL) reservation, to establish that he
possessed the requisite non-creamy-layer status for the
relevant financial year.
25. The certificate relied upon by the petitioner does not,
according to the document produced on record, establish his
non-creamy-layer status for the financial year 2022–23. The
certificate dated 12.04.2023, relied upon by the petitioner,
merely records its validity for one year from the date of its
issuance. Such a certificate cannot, by itself, establish the
petitioner s non-creamy-layer status for the preceding
’
financial year when the relevant requirement is linked to the
income/wealth test applicable to the relevant period.
26. The distinction is important. The petitioner does not
merely suffer from a technical or clerical defect in a certificate
otherwise establishing the requisite status for the relevant
financial year. The deficiency goes to the very root on which
the petitioner seeks the benefit of reservation.
27. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Union Public Service
’
Commission v. Gaurav Singh (supra) has emphasised that
where the relevant financial year forms part of the eligibility
10

2026: JHHC:26910
requirement, a certificate relating to a different financial year
cannot be treated as a mere technical irregularity. The Court
has also held that a candidate is required to exercise due
diligence in ensuring that the certificate furnished satisfies
the requirement of the recruitment notice.
28. Likewise, the principles reiterated in Divya (supra)
support the proposition that where a particular category of
reservation is dependent upon possession of the prescribed
certificate for the relevant period, the recruiting authority is
entitled to insist upon compliance with that requirement. The
subsequent production of a certificate cannot confer upon a
candidate an eligibility which was not established in
accordance with the conditions governing the recruitment.
29. This Court is therefore, unable to accept the
submission that the respondents have changed the rules of
“
the game” . The expression latest caste certificate” cannot be
“
construed to mean that any certificate issued shortly before
the date of application, irrespective of whether it establishes
the requisite non-creamy-layer status for the relevant
financial year, would necessarily confer eligibility for
reservation.

30. Acceptance of the petitioner s interpretation would,
’
in effect, render the requirement concerning the non-creamy-
11

2026: JHHC:26910
layer status and the relevant financial year meaningless.
Such an interpretation would also result in candidates being
granted the benefit of OBC (NCL) reservation without
establishing the very condition upon which such benefit is
founded.
31. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The
petitioner was specifically informed, at the stage of document
verification, of the requirement to furnish the requisite
certificate for the financial year 2022–23. The petitioner did
not challenge the said requirement at that stage. Having
participated in the document-verification process, he cannot
subsequently contend that the requirement itself was wholly
foreign to the recruitment process, particularly when the
same is traceable to the terms of the original advertisement
and the guidelines expressly referred to therein.
32. It is trite that the terms of an advertisement govern
the recruitment process and the candidates are required to
satisfy the conditions prescribed therein. The Court
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
does not sit as an appellate authority over the assessment
made by the recruiting authority, unless the decision is
shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, perverse or contrary to
the governing rules.
12

2026: JHHC:26910
33. In the present case, this Court find no such
arbitrariness or illegality. The respondents have uniformly
applied the requirement relating to the relevant financial year
to candidates claiming OBC (NCL) reservation. The petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that he possessed and produced
the requisite document establishing his eligibility for the OBC
(NCL) category for the relevant financial year.
34. The reliance placed by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner
upon K. Manjusree (supra) and Tej Prakash Pathak
(supra) , therefore, does not advance his case. Those decisions
protect candidates against an alteration of the eligibility or
selection criteria after commencement of the recruitment
process; they do not confer a right upon a candidate to
disregard an eligibility condition which was already
incorporated in the recruitment framework.
35. The writ Court cannot direct the respondents to treat
a candidate as eligible for a reserved category when the
candidate has failed to establish the requisite eligibility in
accordance with the applicable conditions. To do so would
amount to rewriting the advertisement and granting an
exemption to the petitioner which is not available to other
similarly situated candidates.
36. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the
petitioner has failed to establish any legal or enforceable right
13

2026: JHHC:26910
to claim consideration for appointment against the OBC
(NCL) reserved post on the basis of the certificate relied upon
by him.

37. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner for a
direction to the respondents to consider his candidature, to
shortlist him for medical examination and to thereafter
appoint him to the post of Electrician (Non-
Excavation)/Technician cannot be granted.
38. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
I.A., if any, also stand disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J)
Dated: 07/09/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R.

Uploaded on

8.9.2026




14