CANDIDATE BOUND BY CATEGORY DECLARED IN APPLICATION; SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CANNOT INQUIRE INTO FRAUD ABSENT CASTE STATUS DETERMINATION.

Petitioner Bikash Bhattarai (Rank 7) applied for the post of Horticulture Development Officer (HDO) under the OBC Central List (CL) category.

During scrutiny, the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) accepted an OBC State List (SL) certificate produced by the Petitioner and appointed him against the OBC (SL) quota.

Respondent No. 10 (Avinandan Sharma) challenged this before the State Scrutiny Committee, which recommended action based on the manner the certificate was obtained rather than determining caste status.

Consequently, the Petitioner's services were terminated on 06.03.2026.

Both parties filed writ petitions—one challenging the termination and Scrutiny Committee order, and the other seeking appointment to the vacated post.

1. Whether the Scrutiny Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating the "manner" of obtaining a certificate rather than determining the actual caste status of the individual.

2. Whether a candidate who applied under the OBC (CL) category can claim a right to appointment under the OBC (SL) category post-cut-off date.

3. Whether the termination of the Petitioner was justified and what relief may be granted to protect service seniority.

The Court applied the principle that recruitment processes are bound by the details furnished in the application form and the cut-off date, barring specific rectification procedures.

The court defined the legal mandate of the Scrutiny Committee as strictly limited to the determination of "caste status" and making recommendations to the appropriate authority, rather than adjudicating on allegations of fraud or procedural irregularities in certificate production.

The Court observed that the Scrutiny Committee became "oblivious to its role" by failing to conduct an inquiry into the actual caste status of the Petitioner, focusing instead on the procedural aspects of how the certificate was obtained; this jurisdictional error rendered its order dated 16.10.2025 liable to be set aside.

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner originally applied under OBC (CL), he could not subsequently stake a claim to a post reserved for OBC (SL), regardless of any erroneous advice from authorities or oversight by the SPSC.

Consequently, his appointment against the OBC (SL) quota was legally unsustainable, justifying his termination to make way for the rightful candidate, Avinandan Sharma.

It upheld the termination of Bikash Bhattarai dated 06.03.2026 as he was ineligible for the OBC (SL) quota.

The Court allowed WP(C) No. 25 of 2025, directing the SPSC to consider Avinandan Sharma for appointment.

To protect the Petitioner's career, the Court directed the State to accommodate him against a future vacancy within two months, or failing that, by creating a supernumerary post to be regularized against the next substantive vacancy.