JUDGEMENT 1. The abovementioned batch of cases arise out a common order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10121 of 2008 and other analogous cases. 2. The main grievances of the appellants in these appeals are that they have applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance to the advertisement No. 704 dated 21.9.2004. The advertisement indicates that there are 1510 vacancies. Claim of the appellants is that they belong to Most backward classes category and have secured more marks than the candidates who were selected for appointment and also qualified in the physical test but they could not get appointment letters on the ground that they have not submitted their caste certificates issued by the concerned District Magistrate. 3. The case of the appellants/petitioners herein before the learned Single Judge was that they have submitted their O.B.C. certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer as required in the advertisement and on the basis of which they have been issued admit cards for appearing in the written examination and had succeeded in the said examination and obtained higher marks than the candidates who have been selected for appointment which fact has also been accepted by the respondents in their counter affidavits, but the appellants were not selected for appointment on the ground that they have not submitted the caste certificates as required in the advertisement. Therefore, such action in question has been challenged before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioners, appellants herein. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 and respondent nos. 6 to 8. It has been contended before the learned Single Judge as also before this Court that a fresh press note dated 13.10.2007 was published by the Commission with details of the syllabus for the written examination papers and procedures requiring the successful applicants to purchase the O.M.R. forms and apply afresh in the prescribed format. Item No. 6 of the said press note provided that those claiming benefit of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes must submit their caste certificates issued from the Sub-Divisional Officer and those claiming the benefit of other backward castes and extremely backward castes were required to submit their caste certificates including that of not belonging to the creamy layer from the District Magistrate or the officer authorized by him. Schedule-I to the said advertisement dated 13.10.2007 contained the name of such persons, who were under or overage and not eligible to appear at the written examination, or for reasons of the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6088 of 2006 debarring those who had applied from two places. Schedule-ll contained the list of roll numbers of persons from all categories, general and reserved, who had otherwise qualified at the physical screening test, but their applications were wanting for supporting papers. It is contended that for want of such papers the candidate could have been disqualified at the screening stage though otherwise found physically fit. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that even though they have submitted the required certificates signed by the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer and they have secured higher marks than the candidates who have been selected for appointment, the appellants were not selected for appointment on the posts in question. It has further been contended that the Commission has committed irregularities in not affording opportunities to the appellants to remove the defect in their application with regard to the caste certificates. It has been submitted that the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be rejected merely because it is not countersigned by the concerned District Magistrate. It has further been argued that the Division Bench of this Court has already upheld the validity of such certificate in the case of The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2008(2) PLJR 155 . It has further been contended that it is an admitted fact that the Commission has issued a general notice on 13.10.2007 to the effect that the successful candidates would submit a fresh certificate in case their applications were found defective as not being issued from the competent authority as such defective applications were required to be rejected under clause 9 of the advertisement. It is further contended that the appellants cannot be made defaulter as they have already submitted the OBC certificates and they have already been issued with admit cards and they were allowed to appear in the written examination. It is further contended that the appellants cannot be made defaulter as they have already submitted the OBC certificates and they have already been issued with admit cards and they were allowed to appear in the written examination. It has been further contended that the decision of the Commission cannot be sustained in not selecting the appellants for appointment for the reasons that the Commission had not rejected the case of the appellants on the ground of any fraud or misrepresentation and the candidates who have not submitted their certificate at all cannot be termed as separate class as has been observed by the learned Single Judge for the reason that those are the candidates whose applications have to be rejected. It is further contended that such classification cannot have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that It is an admitted fact that the applicants have to submit the OBC certificates issued from the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer as worded in the advertisement in question, but in the fresh press note the appellants were required to submit such certificate which should be duly counter-signed by the concerned District Magistrate during process of appointment as per instruction issued by the Commission, but no opportunity was given to the appellants to remove the defect as was given to the other candidates who have not submitted their certificates at all. In view of the fact that the Commission has rejected their cases only on the ground that they have not submitted the OBC certificate from the concerned District Magistrate, and such action of the Commission cannot be based on classification of the candidates who have failed to submit the caste certificates, and also for the reason that the candidates who have not filed the certificates as indicated in Scheduled-ll cannot be termed to be better placed. 6. 6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission (supra) wherein this Court has observed that the certificates issued by the SDO was a part of his official duty discharged by the S.D.O. and there is a presumption about such official act that it is in compliance of all the required authority and legal requirement. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission has vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants stating that as the appellants have not submitted their caste certificates duly signed by the District Magistrate hence their cases could not be considered. It has further been contended that Schedule-ll to the press note dated 13.10.2007 which contained roll numbers have been treated as separate class as observed by the learned Single Judge hence action of the Commission cannot be said to be faulted. It is further contended that the persons whose application was found defective were given full opportunity in the second advertisement dated 13.10.2007 to submit their caste certificates and non-creamy layer certifi cates from the District Magistrate, but again the appellants had chosen to submit the said certificate signed by the Sub- Divisional Officer who was not competent as per condition mentioned in the advertisement. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the appointment letters have already been issued to the candidates who had come on merits as per reservation quota, but the appellants could not be considered as persons in the reserve category in absence of proper caste certificates. The appellants were given full opportunity in second advertisement dated 13.10.2007 to submit their caste certificates and non-creamy layer certificates. 9. The appellants were given full opportunity in second advertisement dated 13.10.2007 to submit their caste certificates and non-creamy layer certificates. 9. Facts are not in dispute to the extent that an advertisement was issued by the Commission for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for 1510 posts only, but 2110 candidates were selected and appointed on the said post as according to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State the posts are increased and decreased from time to time, which was subject matter of L.P.A. No. 1497 of 2009, where the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the action of the State Government in recruiting the excess persons apart from number of vacancies which may increase or decrease. The facts remain that all the appellants have appeared in the written test conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and obtained higher marks than the candidates who have been selected for appointment, as stated in the affidavits and also in a Tabular form which was produced before this Court signed by all the counsels, which is treated to be part of the record. For convenience the said tabular form is extracted hereinbelow: SI. No. Case No. Name & Roll No. Category Marks obtained Cut-off marks Name & No. of last appointed candidate 1. L.P.A. 416/2009 Rakesh Kumar (P22215) MBC 222.69 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 2. I.A. No. 1827/2011 in LPA No. 416/09 Ranjana Sinha (P03976) BC (W) 225.67 174.63 Alka Soni-B00920 3. 521/2009 Shashi Prabha Mani (P13457) BC (W) 199.05 174.63 Alka Soni-B00920 4. 1014/09 Luci Kumari (X7852) MBC 217.81 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 5. I.A. No. 8743/09 in L.P.A. 1014/09 Kumari Archana Singh BC (W) 202.43 174.63 Alka Soni-B00920 6. 933/2008 Archana Kumari Sinha (P20532) BC (W) 197.66 174.63 Alka Soni-B00920 7. 934/2008 Rupa Kumari (P11897) MBC 209.40 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 8. 956/2008 Nadir Faishal (P43910) MBC 220.87 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 9. 1497/2009 Rohit Kr. Gupta (Z04322) BC 228.52 223.26 Bijendra Kr. Brajesh (P46620) 10. 816/2009 Kanchan Kumari (P41499) BC (W) 186.13 174.63 Alka Soni-B00920 11. 83/10 Rinku Ranjan Kumar (P32856) MBC 189.89 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 12. 125/09 Sanjeev Kumar (P04122) MBC 199.60 187.21 Birendra Kr. Chou. dhary-G06929 13. 1238/10 Shyam Babu (Y09322) and MBC 199.49 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 Shubhendra Kumar (Y18274) SC 222.35 186.76 Yogendra Ravidas(G10822) 14. 1576/09 Kameshwar Jee Prasad (Y20330) MBC 212.16 187.21 Birendra Kr. 83/10 Rinku Ranjan Kumar (P32856) MBC 189.89 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 12. 125/09 Sanjeev Kumar (P04122) MBC 199.60 187.21 Birendra Kr. Chou. dhary-G06929 13. 1238/10 Shyam Babu (Y09322) and MBC 199.49 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-G06929 Shubhendra Kumar (Y18274) SC 222.35 186.76 Yogendra Ravidas(G10822) 14. 1576/09 Kameshwar Jee Prasad (Y20330) MBC 212.16 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary-(G06929) *MBC Most Backward Caste *BC Backward Caste *BC(W) Backward Caste (Women) *SC Scheduled Caste 10. It is the case of the appellants that they have submitted their OBC certificates from the concerned S.D.O. as per the condition inserted in the advertisement itself and they were allowed to appear in the written examination conducted by the Commission and they have become successful in the said examination and obtained higher marks than those who were selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by the Commission, but surprisingly they could not find their names in the merit list of the selected candidates and further they learnt that their names were not recommended only on the ground that they have not submitted their caste certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and also countersigned by the concerned District Magistrate. 11. Now the point arises for determination is that as to whether such certificates submitted by the appellants are valid or not. We had the occasion to go through the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission V/s. State of Bihar reported in 2008(2) PLJR 155 , wherein the law laid in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 are as follows: "Before us, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since certificate produced by the petitioner-respondent no. 2 did not mention that the Sub-Divisional Officer was authorized by the Collector to issue such certificate could not have been taken into consideration. This contention is to be noticed only to be rejected. Firstly, this issue was never joined by the appellants that the certificate produced by the petitioner-respondent no. 2 was not issued by any authorized officer and suffered from defect of the lack or authorization of Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the District Magistrate. This contention is to be noticed only to be rejected. Firstly, this issue was never joined by the appellants that the certificate produced by the petitioner-respondent no. 2 was not issued by any authorized officer and suffered from defect of the lack or authorization of Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the District Magistrate. Secondly, even the advertisement does not show nor it has been pointed out that under any rule or as a part of the policy of the State the caste certificate to be issued at the Sub-Divisional Officer Headquarters must be countersigned by the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer who is otherwise a Chief Executive of Sub-Divisional Headquarter must get independent authority for the purpose of issuing certificate of caste alongwith the creamy layer otherwise vested with power to issue such certificate. Moreover, the certificate has been issued on the official docket of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa and it was a part of the official duty discharged by the Sub- Divisional Officer of any Sub-Divisional Headquarters. There is a presumption about regulatory of the official act that it is in compliance of all required authority and legal requirement. It is for those who question such authority to prove that such certificate is not by a duly authorized person. No such question was raised, nor even now it is stated that such specific authorization was needed and in fact no such authorization was issued. All necessary material in this regard is with State. In view thereof no other conclusion is possible that the appellants, in the first instance, committed a mistake in requiring the petitioner-respondent no. 2 to produce the certificate of District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate only for the purpose of considering her candidature at the time of interview when it was not part of the condition advertised and having required for such additional requirement during interview in spite of a proper certificate having been produced, the petitioner-respondent no. 2 also produced the certificate within the time allowed to her fulfilling such condition also. The contention of Sri Jha that in the circumstances no notice can be taken of any such time granted for the purpose or has any power vested in the Board is also devoid of any force because of very first stage of asking for a certificate from District Magist rate or Additional District Magistrate was without authority. The contention of Sri Jha that in the circumstances no notice can be taken of any such time granted for the purpose or has any power vested in the Board is also devoid of any force because of very first stage of asking for a certificate from District Magist rate or Additional District Magistrate was without authority. If such a demand is considered legitimate then production of a required certificate within time allowed by it for the purpose cannot be ignored. This observation we make only to buttress the conclusion that if as a result of an unauthorized demand the respondent no. 2 was required to fulfill the deficiency they were not required, the consideration could not have been denied on that ground even after same was fulfilled." 12. In view of the fact that there is no material produced by counsel for the respondents to show that the certificates produced by the appellants are not in accordance with the advertisement, we are of the opinion that the said certificates are in force till today. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the appellants have to submit their caste certificates issued only by the concerned District Magistrate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of ratio of the decisions as laid down in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission (supra). 13. The learned Single Judge has observed that the candidates have to submit their caste certificates including the certificate of non-creamy layer from the concerned District Magistrate or an officer authorized by him. In the aforesaid judgment cited supra it was provided that the caste certificate of OBC or EBC issued by the District Magistrate or countersigned by him or issued by the Additional Collector authorized by the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer including that of not belonging to the creamy layer was to be produced at the time of interview but the appellants have not followed such instruction. We are of the opinion that findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the candidates at two stages form as a separate class cannot be sustained in the eye of law for the reason that such classification cannot have a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. 14. We are of the opinion that findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the candidates at two stages form as a separate class cannot be sustained in the eye of law for the reason that such classification cannot have a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. 14. As per terms of the advertisement inviting applications for the candidates for the post of A.S.I, the relevant conditions imposed for seeking benefit of reservation as published in the advertisement is quoted hereinbelow: qof -&% T?rrftTrf 3r^if ^ ^fc^R. ^ ^ 3 fast *ft *rrra ^ H, arrow *ft etw ^f farm trj ¦ £ ^m\ f^rarot ^ft arjsjfEm "srrffM-Hird ^ f, cP# 3TrcaFi =ff ?tto 3rra ^r^ ^ ¦fair arjfeH trqfsraFrrr) -gjn f¥m ¦srrfcT wr-"^ ttct^ =fT!Fn #n i Vmz tt^t f^i erf -$ f ( ^ f-^fs^ifr ^^^ :jjp£ ¦gra urfa^jci ¦q^rfenft srt f¥fa atfo sfto an^r "qir 3 smm wft -q^n affer ^ w$*\ ^# smqm wi enn in ft#n alii mwh ^ft 3 *rr3ft i" (AARAKSHAN.BIHAR SARKAR DWARA LAGU AARAKSHAN SAMBANDHI SABHI NIYAM PRABHAWI HOGAI. MATRA UNHI UMIDABARO KO AARAKSHAN KA LABH MILEGA JO BIHAR RAJYA KE ASTHAYI NIWASI HA1. ANYA RAJYO AWAM KENDRA SHASHIT PRADESHO KE UMIDBAR KO CHAHE WE KISHI BHI JATI KE HOI, AARAKSHAN KA LABH NAHI MILEGA AUR WE SAMANYA SHRENi KE MANE JAYEGE. BIHAR RAJYA KE ASTHAYI NIWASI JO ANUSUCHIT JATI/JANJATI KE HAI UNHE AARAKSHAN KA LABH PRAPT KARNE KE LIYE ANUMANDAL PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT JATI PRAMAN PATRA SANLANGNA KARNA HOGA. BIHAR RAJYA KE ASTHAYI NIWASI JO PICHHARE BARG AWAM ATYANT PICHHARE BARG KE HAI, UNHAI JILADHIKARI ATHWA UNKE DWARA PRADHIKRIT PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT O.B.C. PRAMAN PATRA SANLANGNA KARNA HOGA. JO UMIDWAR AAWEDAN PATRA MAI AARAKSHAN SAMBANDHI SUCHNA ANKIT NAHI KAREGAI UNHE AARAKSHAN KA LABH NAHI MILEGA AUR SAMANYA SHRENI MAI JAYEGE." 15. Subsequently, in the year 2007 after conclusion of physical test another advertisement was published directing the applicants to furnish some certificates. The relevant requirement as published in the subsequent advertisement is also quoted hereinbelow: "srrcsm ^t ^ft ^7} md yufl«=iKT ^ fan ^?ajff T #raTft ?ri f¥fcf "srrfcf smm-TZ/ #)qfa*r 3 ^ ifi ^rr vrwn-m srjgf^cT ^rrfcT/^Uvrfini -£ f, sitwt ^r ctw *tc *rttf fan 3^^ vtfmfi srt ppfa ^nftT wt-t? The relevant requirement as published in the subsequent advertisement is also quoted hereinbelow: "srrcsm ^t ^ft ^7} md yufl«=iKT ^ fan ^?ajff T #raTft ?ri f¥fcf "srrfcf smm-TZ/ #)qfa*r 3 ^ ifi ^rr vrwn-m srjgf^cT ^rrfcT/^Uvrfini -£ f, sitwt ^r ctw *tc *rttf fan 3^^ vtfmfi srt ppfa ^nftT wt-t? *faR ^ i fsrm ti^t ^ ^srrat fwtft # fti5t/3^RT fwt cptf ^ sot "atf^jcT "tKrf?raT0 sro fpfa "3rrf?r ^faR ^ I" "ARAKSHAN KA DAWA KARNE WALE UMIDABARO KE LIYE SAKSHAM PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT JATI PRAMAN PATRA/ CRIMILAYER MAI NAHI HONE KA PRAMAN PATRA BIHAR RAJYA KE ASTHAYI NIWASI UMIDBAR JO ANUS.UCHIT JATl/JANJATI KE HAI, AARAKSHAN KA LABH PRAPTA KARNE KE LIYE ANUMANDAL PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT JATI PRAMAN PATRA SANLAGAN KARAI. BIHAR RAJYA KE ASTHAYI NIWASI JO PICHHARE/ATYANT PICHHARE BARG KE HAI, WE GRIH JILA KE JILADHIKARI ATHWA UNKE DWARA PRADHIKRIT PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT JATI PRAMAN PATRA (CRIMILAYER MAi NAHI HONE SE SAMBANDHIT) SANLAGNA KARAI." 16. From both the advertisements reproduced above, it appears that the candidates are required to furnish caste certificate especially for O.B.C. issued either by the District Magistrate or by other officials authorized by him. 17. In this regard Government Circular No. 11/3TTO l-l02/82-84^Tof^RT 2.2.1982 has been issued by the Personnel and Administrative Department was brought in our notice wherein it is mentioned as follows: W*T #cj "3^ 3TI^T 3TTf^ ^ q£ T^ST tr ftrfa ^3 £ fair fsm ^STf^KT ^ STcTpif 3i^d ^rfWrd, ¦qfWNHI *l4MI *i4hici * Tnffers^cT #? i wg fayRw ^ fan ^qt facrr ^srfsraOT gra ^ f¥fa ^tRt ?tstt c#for SjfcTRqRT "PICHARE BARGO KE LIYE PRADATYA AARAKSHAN KE LABH HETU UNKI AAWEDAN AADI DENE DA STAGE PER JATI PRAMAN PATRA TATHA BARSHIK AAY PRAMAN PATRA NIRGAT KARNE KE LIYE JILA DANDADHIKARI KE ALAWE ANUMANDAL PADADHIKARI, PARIYOJNA KARYAPALAK PADADHIKARI, SAHAYAK PARIYOJNA KARYAPALAK PADADHIKARI, TATHA ANUMANDAL KALYAN PADADHIKARI, PRAKHAND BIKASH PADADHIKARI, ANCHALADHIKARI TATHA PRATHAM SHARENI KE DANDADHIKARI, JILA KALYAN PADADHIKARI TATHA ANUMANDAL KALYAN PADHADHIKARI PRADHIKRIT RAHAIGE. PARANTU NIYUKTI KE LIYE KEWAL JILA DANDADHIKARI DWARA HI NIRGAT JATI TATHA BARSHIK AAY PRAMAN PATRA MANYA HONGE. JILA DANDADHIKARI KE ATIRIKTA UPARYUKTA PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT JATI TATHA BARSHIK AAY PRAMAN PATRA NIYUKTI KE LIYE MANYA NAHI HONGE JAB TAK KI WE PRAMAN PATRA JILA DANDADHIKARI DWARA SATYAPIT AWAM PRATIHASTRAKSHARIT (VERIFIED AND COUNTERSIGNED) NAHI HONGE." 18. PARANTU NIYUKTI KE LIYE KEWAL JILA DANDADHIKARI DWARA HI NIRGAT JATI TATHA BARSHIK AAY PRAMAN PATRA MANYA HONGE. JILA DANDADHIKARI KE ATIRIKTA UPARYUKTA PADADHIKARI DWARA NIRGAT JATI TATHA BARSHIK AAY PRAMAN PATRA NIYUKTI KE LIYE MANYA NAHI HONGE JAB TAK KI WE PRAMAN PATRA JILA DANDADHIKARI DWARA SATYAPIT AWAM PRATIHASTRAKSHARIT (VERIFIED AND COUNTERSIGNED) NAHI HONGE." 18. It is the case of the respondents that the appellants have not produced certificates issued by the District Magistrate, but it is an admitted position that they have furnished the certificates issued by the authorities who are deemed to have been authorized to do so as per Government circular issued in the year 1982. 19. It is not the case of the respondents that the certificates issued by the authorities other than the District Magistrate are not verified or countersigned by the District Magistrate. Moreover, verification or countersigning by the District Magistrate to She certificates issued by other officials is not evident from either of the two advertisements published in this regard as there is no conditions imposed to get the benefit of being a member of OBC whereas, the case of the appellants is that they have already furnished their caste certificates issued by the competent authorities and if at all they are required to furnish the certificates issued by the District Magistrate at the time of appointment, they have not been given any due notice or opportunity. 20. We had the occasion to go through the advertisement dated 13.10.2007 and Circular of the year 1982 in which word Ph^Pm was mentioned. The dictionary meaning of that word Pi^Pw is Process of Recruitment. That meaning would indicate that the certificate can be produced in the process of appointment. According to the case of the appellants they have not been given an opportunity to submit their required certificates during the process of appointment. Under the above circumstances we are not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that the appellants are left on the ground of not submitting their caste certificates issued from the concerned District Magistrate. 21. The next question which would arise for determination is that as to whether the appellants can be treated to be successful candidates or not. 21. The next question which would arise for determination is that as to whether the appellants can be treated to be successful candidates or not. We had the occasion to go through the marks obtained by them in the tabular chart produced by the learned counsel for the respondents, which is treated to be the part of the record, from which it appears that one of the appellant of L.P.A. No. 416 of 2009, namely, Rakesh Kumar of MBC category has obtained 222.69 marks, whereas, cut-off marks was 187.21 and the name and number of last appointed candidate is Birendra Kumar Choudhary-G06929. Full particulars with regard to other appellants have also been given in the said chart which has already been extracted in this judgment. 22. When this Court sought the information from the learned A.A.G. about the existing vacancy, the learned Additional Advocate General has taken efforts to get the number of vacancy available with State Government on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in view of promotion. He has produced before this Court a letter dated 19.4.2011 issued from the office of the Director General of Police (Headquarter) addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police), Patna, which is made part of the record. The said letter is to the following effect: ""73f5F 37 (WW-2 7.2.29.09 ^o TJ^To WfR, f%?R, ¦qz=ni .TTT^TT it 3T*R -gfasr, ^ (stto) fwr, -cre^T! ^TT, ftW 19.4.2011 Trcfr.-anTOT *wfw 1 2009 Ttf?H ^j*TTT *£ P> 1. ^osrofto ^rtfe 3 ^M-fa^ t% ^wp^t 299 ¦Rfamt* ^ f^s xter goffer ^ 3-qrra tjrto g^sqr^i ^ wttsf- 1435/ %-2, f^TRfr 14.4.11 gRi ftgfb ^ frftoT 2. f*r£ 3lfdR«W it^ # 3W 97 f From the contents of the said letter it appears that in view of promotion effected 97 posts are vacant and therefore total vacancy is 396 for the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. 23. We had also the occasion to go through the higher marks than the last cut-off marks obtained by the appellants from the tabular chart produced by the learned counsel for the respondents which is also extracted in this judgment and treated to be the part of the records. 23. We had also the occasion to go through the higher marks than the last cut-off marks obtained by the appellants from the tabular chart produced by the learned counsel for the respondents which is also extracted in this judgment and treated to be the part of the records. In view of principles of law as laid down by the Division Bench in the case of The Bihar Public Service Commission (supra), we are of the opinion that the caste certificates submitted by the appellants for the purpose of their selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police has to be treated as valid certificate by the Staff Selection Commission. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 416 of 2009 (Rakesh Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has relied upon paragraph nos. 22 and 23 of the writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 9682 of 2008 in which it has been stated as follows: "That this is not the end of the matter, rather on 6.4.2008 the Commission again published an urgent notice asking one Farhat Bano to submit the proof of O.M.R. application as the Commission has not received her O.M.R. application till the last date, meaning thereby that she was given an opportunity to submit her application to the Commission. That it is submitted in the afore said context that the candidates in the aforesaid cases have been asked by the Commission to submit their papers if those were not submitted by them till 6.4.2008. The Commission at all required the certificates granted by the District Magistrate, should have also asked the petitioners to submit the same as has been done in the cases of others. The petitioners state and submit that the Commission neither asked them to submit their certificate nor accepted the request of the petitioners to accept the same, rather the Commission told that since their roll numbers have not been displayed in the aforesaid news item and therefore, they are not required to submit their papers." 25. From the aforesaid paragraphs it is evident that although the Commission has sent individual letters to some of the candidates to submit their caste certificates granted by the District Magistrate, if it is not submitted by them till 6.4.2008, but such opportunity was not given by the Commission to the appellants herein. From the aforesaid paragraphs it is evident that although the Commission has sent individual letters to some of the candidates to submit their caste certificates granted by the District Magistrate, if it is not submitted by them till 6.4.2008, but such opportunity was not given by the Commission to the appellants herein. There is no denial of the above fact by the Commission which shows that some irregularities have been committed by the Commission in the process of selection. 26. If that be so, the Commission should have been asked the appellants herein to submit their certificates countersigned by the District Magistrate at the time of selection in view of higher marks obtained by them on merit than that of the selected candidates in the reserved quota. 27. In view of the above facts it has to be observed that the candidates have to be categorized in three groups, firstly the candidates who had submitted the caste certificates including creamy layer issued by the S.D.O., secondly the candidates who had not submitted the caste certificates at all and thirdly the candidates who have received the individual letters from the Staff Selection Commission. The Commission vide press note dated 13.10.2007 has categorized Scheduled-ll for the candidates who had not submitted the caste certificate, but the fact remains that roll number of the appellants did not figure in Schedule-ll under the category that they have not submitted the caste certificate. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellants have been issued an admit card for apearing in the written examination and they also became successful in the said examination including physical test and have obtained higher marks than the candidates who have selected for appointment. The aforesaid facts have remained undisputed. Findings of the learned Single Judge that Schedule-ll is the special category which contained the list of persons from all the categories, general and reserve, who had otherwise qualified at the physical screening test, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be treated as separate class as no reasons are coming from the Commission for showing the roll numbers in Schedule-I of the press note. 28. 28. In absence of any cogent reason either by filing a reply or rejoinder, we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellants should be treated as Separate Class cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 29. The next issue which would arise for determination is as to whether the caste certificates submitted by the appellants should be treated as valid or not. Following the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Commission (supra) this Court is of the opinion that the grounds for rejection of candidature of the appellants is not a valid one. The fact remains that all the appellants have received admit cards for appearing in the written examination and it is not a case of the Commission that those certificates are fraudulent one. On the background of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the candidature of the appellants should not have been rejected as they have obtained higher marks than the cut- off marks and also they have submitted their cast certificates as per the advertisement and in the further advertisement dated 13.10.2007 it was specified that at the time of fayfaff (process of recruitment) the candidates must submit their caste certificates of the concerned authority which should be countersigned by the concerned District Magistrate till the process of appointment is over, but the Commission has not given opportunity to present such certificates as such the said action of the Commission can be termed as discriminatory in nature. 30. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Staff Selection Commission has committed irregularities in rejecting the candidature of the appellants. There is no answer from the Staff Selection Commission as to why they have not sent the individual letter to the appellants to submit their caste certificate by the authority which must be countersigned by the concerned. District Magistrate. The Staff Selection Commission is the recruitment agency of the Bihar Government and if it has chosen to adopt a procedure for one set of candidates by asking them to produce the certificates from those who have not submitted the certificates, they cannot adopt a different procedure for those who have already submitted the certificates of the authority. District Magistrate. The Staff Selection Commission is the recruitment agency of the Bihar Government and if it has chosen to adopt a procedure for one set of candidates by asking them to produce the certificates from those who have not submitted the certificates, they cannot adopt a different procedure for those who have already submitted the certificates of the authority. It would have been prudent on the part of the Commission to grant an opportunity to one and all irrespective of the categories to remove the defects. This Court is of the opinion that the appellants herein are illegally left out by the Commission vhen they have obtained higher marks than that of the selected candidates. The contention of the Commission that the present appellants have not fulfilled the criteria of the selection, cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the Commission has already allowed them with others to appear in the written examination by issuing admit cards when other candidates have also not at all submitted the required caste certificates as required but the other candidates were selected for appointment after giving them an opportunity to remove the deficiency, but the appellants herein were not given such opportunity when they have obtained higher marks than that of the selected candidates. 31. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellants have to be accommodated in their place as per marks obtained by them, as from a perusal of the records it appears that they have obtained higher marks than the candidates who have selected for appointment. This Court is very conscious of the fact that most of the candidates had already joined in their respective posts who have been accommodated in place of the appellants. It is also brought to our notice that most of the selected candidates have been made as party respondents with the leave of the Court, but having received the notices they did not represent either in person or through any counsel. 32. In view of above, the findings of the learned Single Judge with reference to the classification of the candidates vide Schedule-ll is set aside and respondents are directed to accommodate the appellants in their respective places. 32. In view of above, the findings of the learned Single Judge with reference to the classification of the candidates vide Schedule-ll is set aside and respondents are directed to accommodate the appellants in their respective places. However, it is made clear that the appellants have to submit the relevant certificates duly issued by the District Magistrate or if it is issued by the S.D.O. the same should be countersigned by the concerned District Magistrate within the time stipulated by the respondents. 33. However, liberty is also granted to the respondents-State of Bihar to take suitable action to accommodate such can- didates who have occupied the places of the present appellants in the manner they choose. 34. With the above observations and directions the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and these L.P.As. are allowed.