Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 359 (PAT)

Sushmita v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-19

NAVIN SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the BPSC. 2. The relief claimed is for a mandamus to appoint the petitioner on the post of Child Development Project Officer. 3. It is her case that she has secured 251 out of 460 marks in the Backward Class category. The cut-off was 245 marks. She was therefore liable for consideration for appointment. 4. The advertisement dated 11.11.2006 inviting applications for the written examination in Clause 4(ii) provided that a caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate or Additional Collector or by the Sub-Divisional Officer for the backward caste/extremely backward caste. creamy layer shall be accepted as valid. The petitioner submitted such certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer. She was allowed to sit at the written examination where she succeeded. An interview call was issued. Clause 6 of the interview letter required her to produce her caste certificate at the time of interview issued by the District Magistrate or Additional Collector for Backward Caste/Extremely Backward Caste/Creamy Layer. This did not find reference to the Sub-Divisional Officer. On receipt of the communication the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate for such certificate. She however was unable to produce the same on the date of interview i.e. 12.9.2007. The certificate was issued to her on 13.9.2007. She deposited it before the authorities on 15.9.2007, the last date when interviews were going on. The petitioner has therefore been denied the benefit of reserved category candidates and considered as a general candidate. It is her case that on the date of interview she was granted time to deposit the necessary certificate of the District Magistrate and that she did so during the extended time. 5. The counter affidavit of the respondents seeks to deny such assurance given to the petitioner. 6. The only question for consideration is if the petitioner had complied with Clause 4(ii) of the original advertisement inviting application for examination. That is not in controversy. 7. This Court is satisfied that the conditions imposed by the respondents at the time of the interview was only supplemental and confirmatory in nature. It does not and cannot invalidate the conditions prescribed by the respondents in the notice inviting applications for the written examination and which the petitioner has admittedly fulfilled. That is not in controversy. 7. This Court is satisfied that the conditions imposed by the respondents at the time of the interview was only supplemental and confirmatory in nature. It does not and cannot invalidate the conditions prescribed by the respondents in the notice inviting applications for the written examination and which the petitioner has admittedly fulfilled. She had submitted a valid certificate of her belonging to the backward class category alongwith the creamy layer certificate from the S.D.O. Clause 6 of the advertisement specifically stated that incomplete applications would be rejected. The petitioners application was not rejected. She appeared at the written examination. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents have relied upon an order of the Supreme Court passed in SLP No. 23898 of 2003 to urge that it was only certificate of the District Magistrate which was admissible and valid. The controversy before the Supreme Court turned more on the incorrect English rendition of the original Hindi Clause in the advertisement with regard to the production of the caste certificate. The. situation at present where original requirement was fulfilled by production of certificate from the competent Sub-Divisional Officer was not for consideration before the Supreme Court. 9. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner submitted a valid certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, an authority competent in the advertisement. She was permitted to appear at the examination. This Court therefore holds that the conditions of the interview letter was at best supplemental and confirmatory of the requirement of the original certificate submitted by the petitioner issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner has now fulfilled the same. This has in fact been done on the last date of interview itself. 10. This Court, therefore, directs the respondents to consider the status of the petitioner as a backward category candidate and take appropriate decision with regard to her claim for appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ application is disposed off with the above directions.