JUDGMENT : SHIVAJI PANDEY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this case, the petitioner has sought relief of issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Warden/Constable in the Police Department. 3. The Central Selection Board has issued an advertisement vide Advt. No. 3 of 2015 for selection of warden cum Constable for the jail administration invited application from the eligible candidates. The said advertisement was published on 31.7.2015 and the last date for receipt of the application was 24-28/9/2015. The petitioner also applied against the said vacancy. In the application, in the column of caste, he declared belonging to backward caste Dangi but, his application has been rejected on the ground that at the time of verification of the record, the petitioner produced the certificate of E.B.C. rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has given his caste status and qualification as per the date prescribed in the notification i.e. 1.1.2015. So, on 1.1.2015, he was under the B.C. Category and, accordingly, he has declared himself to be the member of B.C. Category, Dangi and he has not committed any wrong giving the correct picture about the status of his caste. 5. Learned counsel for the Central Selection Board has submitted that as the advertisement was published on 31.7.2015 but, much before that, the Dangi caste has been converted from B.C. Category to E.B.C. Category and there is column of correct declaration attached in the application that he will make a correct declaration about his qualification and his statues. Admittedly, he produced before the Commission, the caste certificate of E.B.C. whereas he has declared himself in B.C. Category. It has further been said that in the advertisement, it has been mentioned that the candidate will give correct information to the Commission about his qualification as well as status, any statement found to be incorrect, the application will be rejected, the wrong information came to the light during verification of his certificate about his qualification and about his status of his caste and in support of the submission, learned counsel for the Commission has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court , firstly, in the case of Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) PLJR 1 and in the case of The Central Selection Board of Constable & Ors. v. Raj Kumar & Ors. reported in 2017 (1) PLJR 599 and has submitted that that judgment itself indicates that in the case of giving wrong information, the candidature of the applicant will liable to be rejected. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whatever information he has given according to his status of his caste as on 1.1.2015 is the due cut-off date and has not committed any mistake or misled the Commission. Further submitted that if he cannot get the benefit of reservation then his candidature should be considered in general category candidate. 7. The primary question in the present case is as to whether his application will be treated to have been rejected on furnishing wrong information about the status of caste. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the status of caste is a qualification which this Court cannot subscribe. Certain caste and class has been given certain privilege, will not be converted to the qualification and merely a person is of particular caste by itself will not be a ground for selection or rejection but, the question primarily moving around as to whether the earlier declaration made by the petitioner to be B.C. Category and later on during scrutiny of the document, he has produced the document claiming to be E.B.C. The Court has asked the question as to whether on the date of notification what was the status of his caste as to whether he was B.C. Category or E.B.C. Category and it has been precipitated during discussion that Dangi is a caste, has been declared E.B.C. on 1st or 2nd July, 2015 whereas the advertisement was published on 31.7.2015 and the last date of submission of the form was 24.9.2015. So, on the date of advertisement, there is no dispute that the Dangi caste was declared to be E.B.C. category and he attached the certificate of B.C. Category. So, on the date of advertisement, there is no dispute that the Dangi caste was declared to be E.B.C. category and he attached the certificate of B.C. Category. As per the condition which has been mentioned in the advertisement about giving correct statement about the caste and the qualification is as follows:- vkosnu&i= Hkjus ds iwoZ vH;FkhZ ;g lqfuf'pr dj ysaxs fd os fnuakd& 01-01-2015 dks fu/kkZfjr vk;q lhek] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] vkfn lHkh ik=rk dks iw.kZ djrs gSA vH;FkhZ nloha dh cksMZ ijh{kk ds ewy Áek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu&i= esa viuh tUe frfFk dk lgh&lgh mYys[k djsaxsA vkosnu&i= esa vH;FkhZ viuk uke] firk@ifr dk uke] irk vkfn lHkh lwpuk,a fcYdqy lgh&lgh HkjsaA Áek.k&i=ksa ls feyku ds le; ;fn buesa dksbZ fHkUurk ik;h tkrh gS rks vkosnd@vkosfndk dh mEehnokjh jn~n dj nh tk;sxhA xSj x`g j{kd dksfV ds vkosnd ;fn vkosnu&i= esa Lo;a dks x`g j{kd dksfV dk ?kksf"kr djsaxs rks bldk irk pyus ij mudh mEehnokjh jn~n dj nh tk;sxhA blh Ádkj vkosnu&i= esa ;fn vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ (EBC) ds vkosnd Loa; dks fiNM+k oxZ (BC) ;k fiNM+k oxZ (BC) ds vkosnd Lo;a dks vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ (EBC) ds :i esa ?kksf"kr djrs gS rks mudh mEehnokjh jn~n dj nh tk;sxhA blh Ádkj ;fn vuqlwfpr tkfr (SC) ds vkosnd Lo;a dks vuqlwfpr tutkfr (ST) ;k vuqlwfpr tutkfr (ST) ds vkosnd Lo;a dks vuqlwfpr tkfr (SC) ds :i esa ?kksf"kr djrs gaS rks mudh Hkh mEehnokjh jn~n dj nh tk;sxhA vr% ,sls vosnd iw.kZr% vko'oLr gks ys fd os fdl oxZ vFkok tkfr esa gSA vkjf{kr oxZ ds vkosndksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vius dksfV@Js.kh@tkfr@oxZ ds laca/k esa foLr`r tkudkjh ÁkIr djus gsrq dsUæh; p;u i"kZn flikgh HkrhZ dh osclkbV& www.scbc.bih.nic.in ,oa fcgkj ljdkj }kjk le;= ij tkjh rr~laca/kh v|ru vkns'kksa dk vo'; v/;;u dj ysaA 9. In view of the above, the condition, an applicant will give correct declaration of his caste, B.C. category candidate will make declaration of his own caste certificate, similarly the E.B.C. has to give his own caste certificate, if any variance is found, in such circumstances, the candidature of the applicant will be rejected. In view of the above, the condition, an applicant will give correct declaration of his caste, B.C. category candidate will make declaration of his own caste certificate, similarly the E.B.C. has to give his own caste certificate, if any variance is found, in such circumstances, the candidature of the applicant will be rejected. It is clear from the aforesaid condition that at the time of filling of the form, the candidate must give correct information about his qualification and his caste status, this Court in both the judgments has held that in case a wrong information is given, the application is liable to be rejected. Both are the Division Bench judgment dealing with the similar issue raised in this case. 10. In that view of the matter, the application of the petitioner which has been rejected cannot be said to be illegal. Further submitted by the petitioner that he should be treated to be general category candidate cannot be entertained in view of the fact that when the application itself has been rejected, the question of consideration in unreserved category does not arise. 11. This court does not find any merit in the present writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.