Mistake in Application Category Cannot Be Rectified Post-Cut-Off to Retain Appointment Reserved for Different Category

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

Despite applying under the CL, he produced an OBC State List (SL) certificate during scrutiny, which the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) accepted, subsequently appointing him against an OBC (SL) reserved vacancy.

Respondent No. 10 (Avinandan Sharma) challenged this appointment before the State Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee issued an order on 16.10.2025 focusing on the "fraudulent manner" of obtaining the certificate rather than the Petitioner's actual caste status.

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

1. Whether the Scrutiny Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by inquiring into the conduct of the candidate rather than determining caste status.

2. Whether a candidate who applied under one reservation category (OBC-CL) can validly be appointed against a different reserved category (OBC-SL).

3. Whether the termination of the Petitioner was legally justified.

The Court applied the principle that both the candidate and the examining body (SPSC) are strictly bound by the details furnished in the application once the cut-off date has expired, unless specific rectification procedures exist.

The court further defined the legal mandate of a "Scrutiny Committee," noting its primary role is the determination of caste status and making recommendations to the authority, rather than adjudicating on the "fraudulent manner" of certificate production, which is the employer's or SPSC's prerogative.

The Court reasoned that the Scrutiny Committee failed its primary mandate by neglecting to conduct an inquiry into the Petitioner's actual caste status, focusing instead on the procedural impropriety of the certificate's submission; thus, its order was legally unsustainable.

Regarding the appointment, the Court held that since the Petitioner specifically applied under the OBC (CL) category, he could not legally stake a claim to a post reserved for OBC (SL).

Even if the SPSC overlooked this error initially, the Petitioner was bound by his original application.

Consequently, because the Petitioner occupied a seat reserved for a category he did not apply for, his termination was deemed justified to make way for the rightful candidate, Avinandan Sharma.

However, to balance equity and protect an existing employee, the Court invoked its discretionary power to direct the state to accommodate the Petitioner in future or supernumerary vacancies.

It upheld the termination of Bikash Bhattarai dated 06.03.2026 as justified.

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

The State was directed to accommodate him in a future vacancy within two months or create a supernumerary post to be regularized against the next substantive vacancy.