Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar — 1998 DIGILAW 846 (PAT)

JUDGMENT : B.P. SINGH, J.:- The petitioners in this writ petition claim that they are members of Scheduled tribe. In July-August, 1983, an advertisement was issued by the respondent-Bihar Public Service Commission inviting application from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts including the post of Deputy Collector in the Bihar Administrative Service. The 32nd Combined Competitive examination was held by the Commission some time in the beginning of the year 1984 to fill up the vacancies in different services under the State of Bihar. The petitioners claim that were interested in getting appointed as Deputy Collector in the Bihar Administrative Service. The result of the examination was declared in May, 1986, and the petitioners were thereafter called for the viva voce test which was to be held on 29.5.1986. The petitioners received communication to this effect which was dated 24.5.1986. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, they applied for issuance of a caste certificate by the District Magistrate concerned, but the exact date when they applied has not been disclosed. However, it appears that they failed to produce the caste certificate issued by the prescribed authority on the date of their interview i.e. on 29.5.1986. They however, produced their caste certificates duly issued by the concerned District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner on 3.12.1986 and 9.1.1987 respectively. However, the Bihar Public Service Commission did not entertain the caste certificates furnished by the petitioners on the ground that these should have been furnished latest on the date on which their viva-voce test was held. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the Bihar Public Service Commission was justified in doing so. 2. In my view, this question is squarely answered by a Full Bench Decision of this Court in Braj Kishore Prasad and others Vs. The State of Bihar & others (1998 (3) PLJR 34). It was held by this Court, that where the advertisement specifies the last date for filing of supporting or other documents that must be adhered to, and any document received after such date shall be rejected by the selecting authority. However, in appropriate cases where the selecting authority is of the view that time for furnishing of documents should be extended, it may grant such extension by issuing a public notice to this effect so that all candidates may get the benefit of such extension. However, in appropriate cases where the selecting authority is of the view that time for furnishing of documents should be extended, it may grant such extension by issuing a public notice to this effect so that all candidates may get the benefit of such extension. In the absence of any such extension, the date/dates mentioned in the advertisement should be treated to be the last date for filing of documents, and no documents shall be accepted thereafter. It was further held that no application/document shall be entertained by the Commission if the same is filed after the last date specified in the advertisement or the extended date notified by the Commission, even if the same is filed before the finalisation of the select list. This Court took the view that if the date mentioned in the advertisement was not adhered to the process of selection will never come to an end because each time a candidate furnished fresh material, the select list may have to be recast. The entertaining of documents etc. after the last date specified in the advertisement or in the order granting extension, will lead to unending process of selection and will prevent the selecting authority from making its recommendation for appointment within reasonable time. 3. In the instant case, admittedly, the last date fixed for producting the caste certificate was the date when the candidates was called for the viva voce test, in this case on 29.5.1986. It is not disputed that this date was never extended and at the time of their viva voce test, the petitioners could not produce a caste certificate issued by the prescribed authority. In these circumstances, in my view, the ratio of the full bench decision applies with full force and the BPSC cannot be faulted for not accepting the caste certificates produced 7 or 8 months later. 4. Counsel for the petitioners however relief upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 169 (Miss Neelima Shanga Vs. State of Haryana and others) and submitted on the basis of that authority that it is the business of the Public Service Commission only to recommend the names of the candidates on the basis of the test held by it, and it is for the Government to make the appointment. State of Haryana and others) and submitted on the basis of that authority that it is the business of the Public Service Commission only to recommend the names of the candidates on the basis of the test held by it, and it is for the Government to make the appointment. In substance, he submitted that the Public Service Commission is not required to go into the question as to whether a candidate belongs to one or the other reserved category and that it is really a matter which the Government will take into account while finalising the appointments. The argument logically leads to the conclusion that the Bihar Public Service Commission is not justified in insisting upon the candidates producing a caste certificate from any prescribed authority. If the candidates produce caste certificate issued by any other authority, which is considered sufficient for the purpose of making an application, the Commission should act on that basis and should leave it to the Government to consider whether those candidates really belong to the reserved category claimed by them. It is not the business of the Bihar Public Service Commission to satisfy itself as to whether reservation sought by a candidate on the basis of his belonging to a particular caste is justified or not. 5. In my view, the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon, does not lay down any such proposition. It is an authority for the proposition that where the rule requires the Commission to prepare a list of all successful candidates, the Commission cannot prepare a curtailed list of successful candidates leaving out the names of candidates who had qualified in terms of the rules, having secured the prescribed qualifying marks. The observations of the Supreme Court must be considered in this light. 6. In my view, the Bihar Public Service Commission is required to recommend candidates having regard to the reservation quota. It has, therefore, to prepare a list of successful candidates in the un-reserved category and also to prepare fists of candidates in the different reserved categories in accordance with the rules regarding reservation. For this purpose, it is bound to satisfy itself that the candidate claiming reservation really belongs to one of the reserved category and for this purpose, the Bihar Public Service Commission insists that a caste certificate issued by the prescribed authority only shall be accepted. For this purpose, it is bound to satisfy itself that the candidate claiming reservation really belongs to one of the reserved category and for this purpose, the Bihar Public Service Commission insists that a caste certificate issued by the prescribed authority only shall be accepted. It is well known that if a caste certificate issued by any authority is accepted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, lot of fake certificates may be produced before the Commission claiming reservation. That is why the Commission insists that the caste certificate should be issued by the prescribed authority, namely, the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned. With a view to avoid hardship at the time of making the application, a candidate is allowed to produce a caste certificate issued by any of the authorities named in the advertisement, but the Commission insists that though that may serve the purpose for filing of the application, if ultimately the candidate is called for viva voce test, he must on that date produce a caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, unless produced earlier. There appears to be nothing unreasonable in the insistence of the Bihar Public Service Commission for production of such caste certificate. Counsel for the petitioners has not produced before this Court the advertisement said to have been issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission, but he has produced as Annexure-1 what he describes as the prospectus. I can take judicial notice of the fact that what is described in the prospectus contains substantially the terms and conditions of the advertisement, and makes it abundantly clear that a candidate may submit his application along with a caste certificate issued by any of the authorities named therein but for final selection, he must produce at the time of the viva voce test, a caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners cannot claim that they had no notice of this fact. Apart from Annexure-1, the advertisement which is issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission contains these terms and conditions and any serious candidate applying in response to the advertisement knows that he has to produce the caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner at the time of interview. Apart from Annexure-1, the advertisement which is issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission contains these terms and conditions and any serious candidate applying in response to the advertisement knows that he has to produce the caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner at the time of interview. There is thus sufficient notice to the candidates, but if on account of laches, they do not produce a caste certificate within time, they cannot make a grievance that they did not have sufficient time to obtain a caste certificate. In this case for instance, the advertisement was issued as early as in the year 1983 and the viva voce test was held on 29.5.1986. The petitioners had sufficient time to obtain a easte certificate issued by the competent authority if they were really serious about the matter. They cannot be heard to say that they could have applied only after the result was published. 7. Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that many other candidates have been permitted to file their caste certificates pursuant to the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court. The Full Bench judgment notices the earlier judgments of this Court where such permissions were granted at times, but the decision of the Full Bench now settles the position in law. It was with a view to avoid inconsistency that the Full Bench was constituted and after the decision of Full Bench it is not open to me to take a view relying upon earlier decision of smaller benches which are not consistent with the judgment of the Full Bench. Moreover, the petitioners took the 32nd Combined competitive examination, and there is nothing before me to show that any candidate who took the 32nd competitive examination was permitted by this Court to file his caste certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement. 8. It was then submitted by counsel for the petitioners that in regard to some documents, the Commission did not insist on their presentation before a particular date, and in those cases, the Commission did make its recommendation in favour of candidates not producing such documents, which would be evident from Annexure-12, since the Government at a later stage demanded those documents from the selected candidates. According to him, this amounts to discrimination. According to him, this amounts to discrimination. I fail to understand how the charge of discrimination is made out because in respect of some documents, the relaxation was granted to all concerned candidates and not in favour of any particular candidate on selective basis. The caste certificate, however, was considered to be a crucial document without which the lists of successful candidates could not be prepared, and therefore the Commission took the view that in the absence of caste certificate issued by the competent authority, the claim of a candidate as belonging to a reserved category could not be entertained. I do not find that Article 14 has been infringed. 9. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.