Bona fide error in caste status does not preclude appointment under unreserved category if merit criteria are met.

The respondent, Sunil, applied for the Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination-2017 (CHSL-2017) for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.

He submitted an OBC certificate issued by the Tehsildar of Samalkha, Haryana, stating that the 'Goswami' community belonged to the Central List of OBCs.

After securing selection and providing a formal undertaking regarding his OBC status on 6 September 2019, he was appointed to the Directorate of Census Operations (DCO) in Chhattisgarh.

Subsequently, the DCO alleged the 'Goswami' caste was not on the Central List and issued a show-cause notice.

Despite the respondent’s plea that he had acted bona fide and met the criteria for the Unreserved (UR) category, his services were terminated on 18 January 2021.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside the termination, directing the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to consider him as a UR candidate.

The Petitioner (Union of India/SSC) challenged this order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the respondent's appointment was vitiated by a deliberate misrepresentation or misstatement regarding his caste status.

2. Whether a candidate who mistakenly applies under a reserved category can be considered for selection under the Unreserved (UR) category if they meet the merit and age criteria for the same.

Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, regarding termination of services.

Principle of bona fide mistake, noting that for a candidate to be disqualified for misrepresentation under Article 226/exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, there must be evidence of contumacious conduct or intent to deceive.

The doctrine that merit-based selection in the UR category is permissible for reserved category candidates who fail to prove their category status but otherwise qualify on merit and age.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the respondent had twice misstated facts, observing that the Tehsildar’s own correspondence (dated 11 January 2021) admitted to technical confusion where the 'Goswami' caste appeared as part of the Central List on the government's digital portals/Common Service Centres.

The Court reasoned that since the Tehsildar—the competent authority—had issued the certificate, the respondent could not be held to have acted with mala fide intent in relying on it.

The Court further noted that the respondent's declaration to the SSC was merely in sync with the official certificate held at that time.

Since the respondent was within the age limit for the UR category and had secured higher marks than the last selected UR candidate, the Court found no justification for total termination when the error was administrative rather than a personal fraud.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's directions, ordering the Petitioner to comply with the Tribunal’s order to treat the respondent as a UR category candidate and, if found eligible on merit, proceed with his appointment.