JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that by issuance of Annexure-4 vide letter no. 584 dated 1st April, 2011, the respondent no.4, District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, had directed the petitioner to submit Caste and Residence certificate from the competent authority, especially issued for the purposes of employment, failing which her services would be terminated. 3. The petitioner is said to have been appointed after having succeeded in the recruitment exercise conducted under Advertisement No. 12/2008 for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Scheduled Caste Category. She has accordingly submitted her joining on 3rd August, 2010 at Harizan High School Bhalu Basa, Jamshedpur. As per the petitioner, the terms of advertisement required furnishing of certificate of residence as well as caste certificate to avail the benefits of such reservation for the scheduled caste to which she belongs. She accordingly, had submitted the residence certificate as also the caste certificate, which are annexed as Annexures: 3 & 3A, duly issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum on 19th June, 2010 and 2nd March, 2010 respectively before the respondents authorities for verification after which 6 months salary was also paid to her. These certificates were produced at the time of verification before submitting her joining at the place where she was posted as Assistant Teacher. 4. Strangely, the respondents have sought to insist upon production of certificate of caste and residence issued specifically for the purposes of employment issued by the competent authority under the Respondents-State of Jharkhand, failing which her services would be terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, reference to Annexure-C to the counter affidavit dated 22nd March, 2011, which is made the basis for issuance of Annexure-4 impugned herein, would show that, the Circular No. 4156 dated 17th July, 2002, has been relied upon by them. The said circular dated 17th July, 2002 itself is based upon two circulars dated 22nd September, 2001 and 3rd March, 1982 being Memo No. 3389 and letter no. 806 respectively, which have however been declared ultra-vires and quashed by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Vidyarthy -Vs.-State of Jharkhand & ors. reported in (2003) 1 JCR 3 (Jhr.). Reference to paragraph nos. 4 & 5 and 23 of the said judgment have been made. 6. 806 respectively, which have however been declared ultra-vires and quashed by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Vidyarthy -Vs.-State of Jharkhand & ors. reported in (2003) 1 JCR 3 (Jhr.). Reference to paragraph nos. 4 & 5 and 23 of the said judgment have been made. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the terms of the advertisement did not require production of such caste and residence certificates issued especially for the purpose of employment, then the respondents are not justified in insisting for production of such certificates, failing which her services would be terminated. It is submitted that the Rules of the game laid down under the Advertisement should not have been changed after the entire process has been concluded and appointments have been made as is well settled in law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, assails the impugned order stating that it is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and based upon circulars which are already nonexistent in view of the same being quashed by Special Bench of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State, on the other hand, submits by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit that, at the time of making of application, such candidates had submitted the copies of the certificate of caste and residence which were subject to verification before their appointments as per the terms of the departmental letter issued for the said purposes. In such circumstances, inconsistency has been found in production of such documents by several candidates. In that view of the matter, directions were issued by Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, as contained in Annexure-C dated 22nd March, 2011 for production of such certificates especially issued for the purposes of employment in order to claim benefit of reservation in appointment. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State, therefore, submits that all such appointed teachers have complied with the said direction, but the petitioner is one, who has resisted the same by not doing so. However, on being asked about the rationale for production of caste certificate and residence certificate, especially for the purposes of employment under the respondents, the counsel for respondents is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation. 10. The certificates which are annexed as Annexure-3 and 3/A have been issued by the competent authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum. However, on being asked about the rationale for production of caste certificate and residence certificate, especially for the purposes of employment under the respondents, the counsel for respondents is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation. 10. The certificates which are annexed as Annexure-3 and 3/A have been issued by the competent authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum. In the caste certificate of the petitioner issued on 19th June, 2010, at the top it has been written as 'Sabhi Karyo Kai Liya', but at the bottom it has been handwritten 'Shiksha Hetu' In the residence certificate of the petitioner, issued 2nd March, 2010 at the top, it has been written as 'Shikchan Sansthaon mai Namankan Hetu'. Be that as it may, the advertisement in question, only required submission of caste and residence certificates issued by the competent authority of the State not less than the Sub Divisional Officer. These two certificates have been issued by Sub-Divisional Officer. 11. It further appears that the reference made in Annexure-C to the circular no. 4156 dated 17th July, 2002, is based upon two circulars as contained in Memo No. 3389 and letter no. 806 dated 17th July, 2002 and 3rd March, 1982, respectively which apparently have been struck down by the Special Bench in the judgment rendered in the case of Prashant Vidyarthy-Vs.- State of Jharkhand & ors (Supra). The other circular which has been referred to in said Annexure-C is dated 21st December, 2010 which again has relied upon the circular no. 6170 dated 18th November, 2006 and the circular no. 4156 dated 17th July, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the circular no. 6170 dated 18th November, 2006, according to which in view of the judgment rendered in case of Kavita Kumari i.e. in W.P.(S) No. 578 of 2004, the said circular has been issued, , stipulating a condition that for availing the facility of reservation in the State of Jharkhand, a proper certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand is a necessary requirement. Learned counsel has rightly therefore pointed out that the reference to the circular dated 21.12.2010 in Annexure-C is also based upon a circular of 18th November, 2006 which does not insist upon the production of caste and residence certificate issued especially for the purposes of employment. 12. Moreover, the other circular no. Learned counsel has rightly therefore pointed out that the reference to the circular dated 21.12.2010 in Annexure-C is also based upon a circular of 18th November, 2006 which does not insist upon the production of caste and residence certificate issued especially for the purposes of employment. 12. Moreover, the other circular no. 4156 dated 17th July, 2002, referred to in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit itself is based upon two circulars which has been declared as ultra-vires and quashed by Special Bench of this Court. In such circumstances, therefore, the respondents have failed to show any rationale for insisting upon production of such certificates, especially meant for employment purposes. Otherwise also the terms of advertisement did not contemplate submission of such certificates of caste and residence issued by the competent authority, for the purposes of employment alone, under which the said recruitment exercise was conducted and the petitioner and others were appointed. 13. In totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons discussed hereinabove therefore the insistence upon production of such certificates vide letter no. 584 dated 1st April, 2011( Annexure-4), cannot be said to be based upon any rationale justification. Therefore the respondents shall not insist upon production of such documents of caste and residence certificate especially issued for employment purposes upon the petitioner as required by the letter dated 1st April, 2011 in question. 14. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is continuing to discharge her duties at the place of her posting, the respondents are directed to release her due salary in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid term.