JUDGMENT : I.A. No.3470 of 2018:- 1. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 39 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. 3. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No.189 of 2018 :- 4. The is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.481 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the order dated 20.01.2016 issued by respondent No.5, District Superintendent of Education, Latehar, by which the candidatures of the writ-petitioners have been rejected on the ground of residential certificates, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar to take immediate steps for issuance of letter of appointment to the writ-petitioners if there is no other legal impediment. 5. The briefs facts of the case which requires to be referred herein for proper consideration of the lis reads hereunder as: The appellants/respondent-authorities came out with an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the post of teachers. The writ-petitioners being qualified in all respect, made application for consideration of their candidature for their appointment in 2nd Language Nagpuri. Both the writ-petitioners were called for on 6th counseling and in the 6th counseling final merit list (I-V) non-para ST-2015 prepared under which the names of the writ-petitioners appeared at serial Nos.25 & 26 respectively. The writ-petitioners appeared in the counseling held on 30.11.2015 before the Board and submitted all required documents. The appellants/respondents scrutinized the original Jharkhand Teachers Eligibility Test (JTET) certificates and receiving were given to them under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Latehar. Subsequently, on 25.12.2015, a general notice was issued in the daily newspaper regarding distribution of appointment letters on 26.12.2015. The appellants/respondents scrutinized the original Jharkhand Teachers Eligibility Test (JTET) certificates and receiving were given to them under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Latehar. Subsequently, on 25.12.2015, a general notice was issued in the daily newspaper regarding distribution of appointment letters on 26.12.2015. Though, the writ-petitioners have been found to be qualified and were eligible for distribution of appointment letters on 26.12.2015 but the writ-petitioners were informed that their candidature have been rejected on the ground of residential certificates and a decision to that effect has been taken by the District Establishment Committee. The writ-petitioners having no option approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.481 of 2016 for quashing of the letter dated 20.01.2016. The said writ petition was allowed against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant-State has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the candidature of the writ-petitioners have rightly been rejected on the ground that the caste certificates which have been submitted by the writ-petitioners were issued by the Block Development Officer, however, according to the appellants, the caste certificates which were required to be submitted were to be issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned sub-division. However, initially the candidature of the writ-petitioners were considered but on verification when it was found that the caste certificates which ought to have been submitted by the writ-petitioners duly being issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer but the caste certificates which were issued by the Block Development Officer were filed, therefore, their candidature have been rejected. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect of the matter in right perspective. According to him, if any requirement of document is reflected in the advertisement that one or the other candidates is required to submit and if such document has not been submitted, in that eventuality if the candidature of such candidate has been rejected, it cannot be said to suffer from infirmity, which exactly is the case herein, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents had defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that there is no laches on the part of the writ-petitioners since in the advertisement there is no stipulation about the caste certificate which was to be submitted by one or the other candidates showing the competency of the authority in issuing the caste certificate and accordingly, the caste certificates which were issued by the Block Development Officer of the concerned Block was submitted along with the application form. On the basis of that, their candidature have been accepted and they have been allowed to participate in the selection process wherein they have been found to be successful and not only that they have been found to be within the merit list and considered fit to be appointed but on the date of counseling since they have produced the caste certificates issued by the Block-Development Officer, therefore, the ground has been taken by the authority that on the basis of submission of application, the caste certificates which had been submitted since were not issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer rather by the Block Development Officer, therefore, there is infirmity in the application form, hence, the very candidature of the writ-petitioners were required not to be accepted but due to inadvertence it was accepted and hence, a decision was taken after scrutinizing the documents pertaining to caste certificates having not been submitted issued by the competent authority and the candidature of the writ-petitioners were rejected which according to the learned counsel for the writ-petitioners cannot be said to be justified decision in absence of any stipulation made in the advertisement showing competent caste certificate issuing authority. He further submits that there is no discrepancy in the caste certificate either issued by the Block Development Officer or by the Sub-Divisional Officer since they belong to Schedule Tribe Community. He further submits by making comparison with the format of the certificates which were issued by the Block Development vis-a-vis the Sub-Divisional Officer, wherefrom it is evident that the caste certificates were issued by the Block Development Officer to be used for all purposes and when it was to be used for all purposes, the laches cannot be said to on the part of the writ-petitioners. Further, the ground has been agitated by the learned counsel for the writ-petitioners by referring to the impugned decision dated 20.01.2016 wherein the candidature of the writ-petitioners have been rejected on the ground of residential certificate but in the counter affidavit the authorities have tried to justify their action placing reliance upon the caste certificates and hence, the reason for cancellation of candidatures is based upon the competency of the authority who had issued the residential certificates while in the counter affidavit, the ground has been taken about competency of the authority who had issued the caste certificates, therefore, the learned Single Judge, after considering all these aspects of the matter, has rightly came to a finding about the illegality committed by the authority and therefore, the impugned order has been quashed, hence, the same may not be interfered with. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the action of the State authority vis-a-vis the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to go through the advertisement which has been brought on the record being part of the paper-book. The said advertisement was issued on 07.08.2015 which contains conditions as under condition Nos.6, 12, 14 & 20 which are relevant for the present. Condition No.6 thereof stipulates that the benefit of reservation will be provided to the candidate in pursuance to the decision as contained under Circular No.2020 dated 09.04.2010 or the latest order. Condition No.12 provides that caste and residential certificates would only be acceptable, if issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand in pursuance to the requirement as decided by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. Condition No.14 provides that the candidature of such candidates who would be declared to be successful having the name figured in the final merit list would only be considered if the certificates or the eligibility criteria as has been referred in the application at the time of counseling would be found to be correct. Condition No.20 under the caption heading “Note” provides that the application is to be submitted in proper manner. 9. Condition No.20 under the caption heading “Note” provides that the application is to be submitted in proper manner. 9. It is, thus, evident that the reference of caste and residential certificates has been said to be acceptable as under condition No.12 to be issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand in pursuance to the requirement as decided by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department. It further contains a condition as under condition No.14 that the veracity of the document would be verified in the counseling of such candidates who would be found to be in the final merit list. 10. The writ-petitioners have appeared by filing applications in pursuance to the advertisement along with the caste certificates issued on 08.01.2014 by the Circle Officer, Raidih, Gumla declaring the writ-petitioners under the Oraon category. It is evident from the aforesaid caste certificates which have been issued under the Format-I to be used for all purposes. 11. Admittedly the writ-petitioners have submitted the caste certificates having been issued by the Circle Officer on 08.01.2014 basis upon which their candidature have been accepted and they have been allowed to participate in the selection process. It also require to refer herein that the application was to be filed in pursuance to the advertisement not On-line, meaning thereby, the application was to be submitted by one or the other candidates along with documents as required to be submitted. 12. The State authority had occasioned to scrutinize the documents and at the time of scrutiny, the candidature of the writ-petitioners have been accepted even though the caste certificates along with applications have been submitted by one or the other writ-petitioners having been issued by the Circle Officer, Raidih, Gumla. 13. The writ-petitioners after being qualified and as per their name figured in the merit list have been directed to participate in the counseling, accordingly, they had participated in the counseling but shown the caste certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chainpur, Gumla showing the writ-petitioners member of the Oraon category under the Schedule Tribe category. 13. The writ-petitioners after being qualified and as per their name figured in the merit list have been directed to participate in the counseling, accordingly, they had participated in the counseling but shown the caste certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chainpur, Gumla showing the writ-petitioners member of the Oraon category under the Schedule Tribe category. The candidature of the writ-petitioners have been rejected and when on enquiry they came to know about the communication dated 20.01.2016 issued by the District Superintendent of Education showing the writ-petitioners disqualified on the ground that the residential certificates enclosed with the application having been issued at the Block level while according to the State authority the residential certificates ought to have been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer as has been stated hereinabove by making reference of condition No.12 of the advertisement that caste and residential certificate would be the basis of the benefit of reservation if issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand in pursuance to the decision of Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department but who is the competent authority has not been notified in the said advertisement. 14. The writ-petitioners have been shown to be disqualified on the ground of furnishing of residential certificates not duly been issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand but the question herein is that when the authority has taken decision by disqualifying one or the writ-petitioners, the first requirement according to the considered view of this Court, is that the candidature of such candidate can only be rejected if specific stipulation to that effect would have been made in the advertisement, meaning thereby, the reference of the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand ought to have been referred in the advertisement and only then, if the caste or the residential certificates would not have been submitted by one or the other writ-petitioners, the same would be said to be not in pursuance to the advertisement, then it will be said to be a proper ground for holding the writ-petitioners disqualified. 15. 15. This court has reached to such conclusion on the basis of the settled position of law that if there is a vague condition in the advertisement, the candidate cannot be allowed to suffer, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case wherein although the caste certificates have been submitted by one or the other writ-petitioners duly been issued by the Circle Officer showing the writ-petitioners member of the Schedule Tribe, basis upon which the benefit of reservation had to be provided, on the date of counseling, the caste certificates had been produced by the one or the other writ-petitioners duly been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer as a member of Oraon Community coming under the Schedule Tribe Community, therefore, either in the caste certificates issued by the Block Development Officer or the Sub-Divisional Officer, there is no difference with respect to the caste of one or the other writ-petitioners. 16. In this factual scenario, this Court is to consider that can on that ground the writ-petitioners be held to be disqualified for appointment. According to the considered view of this Court that since the authority has not notified in the advertisement the reference of competent authority, the candidature of one or the other candidate taking such ground if not available in the advertisement will be said to be unjustified. The matter would have been different if there is any contradiction in the caste certificates either being issued by the Circle Officer or by the Sub-Divisional Officer but that is not the case herein. 17. The matter would have been different if there is any contradiction in the caste certificates either being issued by the Circle Officer or by the Sub-Divisional Officer but that is not the case herein. 17. The appellant-State has tried to impress upon the Court by referring to the communication dated 03.07.2004 issued under the signature of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department wherein it has been decided that the caste certificate if issued by the authority lower than in the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer the same would not be taken into consideration either for appointment or for appearing in the competitive examination but this Court is of the view that the said document will not be of any aid to the appellant-State in view of the fact that the said document has been communicated to the department/authority having not been notified in the Gazette for people in general to know and further such stipulation has not been made in the advertisement making reference of the said Circular dated 09.04.2010, therefore, the appellants cannot be allowed to take advantage of the said circular leading this Court in coming to the conclusion that the infirmity/laches has been committed by the writ-petitioners. 18. Further it is evident from the impugned order that the cause for disqualifying the writ-petitioners has been shown to be the validity of the caste certificates since being issued by the Block Development Officer as has been referred in the impugned decision of the authority questioned before the writ court. 18. Further it is evident from the impugned order that the cause for disqualifying the writ-petitioners has been shown to be the validity of the caste certificates since being issued by the Block Development Officer as has been referred in the impugned decision of the authority questioned before the writ court. This Court has also considered the communication dated 20.01.2016 wherefrom it is evident that the writ-petitioners have been declared to be disqualified on the ground that the residential certificates have been issued at the block level but as would appear from the stand taken by the appellant-State in the counter affidavit that the writ-petitioners have been shown to be disqualified on the basis of the caste certificates having been issued by the incompetent authority i.e., by the B.D.O. and not by the S.D.O., but the question herein is that in the impugned decision dated 20.01.2016 there is no reference of the caste certificate, however, in the counter affidavit the stand inter alia has been taken by the appellant-State before the writ court that the residential certificates were issued by the Circle Officer, therefore, the same will not be treated to be valid one being not issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 19. This Court, therefore, is of the view that if the writ court has taken into consideration the contradictory stand of the State authority in the decision dated 20.01.2016 and the counter affidavit and if on that basis conclusion has been arrived at that the candidature of one or the other candidate cannot be cancelled or the candidate cannot be disqualified on the basis of the issuance of residential certificates, the same according to this Court, cannot be said to be faulted with. 20. In view of the entirety of facts and circumstances and as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge while interfering with the letter dated 20.01.2016 issued by the respondent No.5 so far as it relates to the present writ-petitioners has not committed any error. 21. In the result, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 22. Interlocutory application being I.A. No.3469 of 2018 filed for stay of operation of the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.481 of 2016 also stand dismissed.