JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.09.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6587 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:- (i) “To quash and set aside the Bokaro District Force Order no. 2111 of 2018 contained in Memo no. 3907 dated 29.10.2018(Annexure-8) passed by Respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been discharged from the service. (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages.” 4. The fundamental facts of the case are not in dispute. 5. In the year 2015, Advertisement no. 04/15 was issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as JSSC) for appointment to the post of constables in all the districts of the State of Jharkhand. The applications were to be submitted online by 15.10.2015. The requirement under clause 8(iii) of the Advertisement was that the certificate in connection with the BC-II or BC-I category must be issued after 31.03.2015 to sustain a claim for reservation. There was no requirement in the advertisement to possess a caste certificate at the time of filing the application form but the caste certificate was to be produced at the time of verification of documents. 6. The appellant submitted online application on 15.10.2015 and mentioned her category as BC-I falling under the broad category of “other backward classes”. The appellant was found fit in all respects and passed the physical and medical fitness tests. 7. The appellant belongs to the caste Koeri for which the appellant was issued a caste certificate on 24.12.2016 pursuant to an application filed on 24.11.2016 and her caste falls under the BC-II category under the broad category of “other backward classes”. 8. The counseling/certificate verification was conducted on 02.01.2017 when the appellant submitted her caste certificate dated 24.12.2016. The appellant got selected and a call/appointment letter was issued to her by the office of respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 2102 dated 28.04.2017 and the appellant joined on 28.04.2017. After more than one year, the appellant received a letter from JSSC being memo no. 2761 dated 01.06.2018 asking the appellant to explain her caste category seeking reservation. The appellant got selected and a call/appointment letter was issued to her by the office of respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 2102 dated 28.04.2017 and the appellant joined on 28.04.2017. After more than one year, the appellant received a letter from JSSC being memo no. 2761 dated 01.06.2018 asking the appellant to explain her caste category seeking reservation. The appellant responded to the same and submitted that she did not suppress any fact from the respondents and she was discharging her duty after the appointment. Thereafter the appellant was discharged from service vide order impugned in the writ petition dated 29.10.2018 issued by respondent no. 3. 9. The reason for her discharge was that she had applied under BC-I category but her caste certificate was of BC-II category and therefore her candidature was treated under the unreserved female category and she could not be selected on merits amongst the candidates under unreserved female category. 10. The specific case of the appellant before the learned writ Court was that the appellant was appointed after due scrutiny and there was no suppression from her side as the caste certificate was duly produced and therefore she was wrongly discharged. Neither any opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant before her discharge, nor any memo of charge was issued, nor any inquiry officer was appointed and therefore the action of the respondents was illegal. It was also the case of the appellant that the appellant had produced her caste certificate dated 24.12.2016 and as per the caste certificate, the appellant belongs to the BC-II category and hence the appellant should have been considered under the BC-II category and not under the unreserved female category as there were vacancies in the female (BC-II) category. 11. A counter affidavit was filed before the writ Court by respondent no. 4 i.e. on behalf of the JSSC opposing the prayer by stating that the appellant had submitted an online application form for consideration of the candidature under BC-I (female) category although the appellant was belonging to BC-II category and therefore the appointment of the appellant was rightly withdrawn and the appellant was discharged. 4 i.e. on behalf of the JSSC opposing the prayer by stating that the appellant had submitted an online application form for consideration of the candidature under BC-I (female) category although the appellant was belonging to BC-II category and therefore the appointment of the appellant was rightly withdrawn and the appellant was discharged. It was stated that under an order passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 3239 of 2017, the State was directed to conduct a re-medical examination and those candidates who had scored more marks than the last selected candidate in their respective category but declared unsuccessful were sent for re-medical examination and as such the entire result was to be re-casted and during this process, it came to light that at the time of verification of the certificate, the appellant had produced her caste certificate dated 31st December 2016 of BC-II category although in the application form she had applied under BC-I category. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that under such circumstances, the candidature of the appellant was considered under the unreserved female category, and as the appellant had obtained less marks than the marks secured by the last selected candidate under the unreserved female category she was not declared successful. Clause 9 of the advertisement was relied in the counter affidavit to state that no correction could be made in the application form which may affect the result and as such JSSC rejected the candidature of the appellant under BC-II category and she was placed under unreserved female category. 12. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 14.09.2020 by observing that it is well settled principle of law that every selection process has to be completed strictly in terms of certain criteria mentioned in the advertisement and therefore no case for interference was made out. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned order dated 14.09.2020 has submitted that the appellant had mentioned her category as BC-I at the time of applying, but thereafter she had obtained the caste certificate only on 24.12.2016, which declared her caste under BC-II category. She has submitted that the candidature of the appellant ought to have been considered under BC-II (female) category instead of the unreserved female category. She has submitted that the candidature of the appellant ought to have been considered under BC-II (female) category instead of the unreserved female category. She also submits that the respondents had inducted the appellant after due scrutiny and there was no suppression on the part of the appellant. 14. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant had obtained 110 marks whereas the cut-off marks for the last selected candidate under the BC-I category was only 99 and also that no candidate was selected under the BC-II (female) category. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the category under which one or other caste will fall i.e. under the BC-I category or BC-II category was amended from time to time and even after the appointment till 18.12.2015 when one notification was issued by the Department of Personal Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand making inter-se changes in the list containing BC-I and BC-II category. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2019 (Ranjeet Prabhakar versus the State of Jharkhand) against which Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14377 of 2022 has also been dismissed. The said judgment deals with the aforesaid notification dated 18.12.2015 and a copy of the said notification has been produced before this Court. 16. The learned counsel has submitted that the fact that the appellant belongs to the BC-II category is not in dispute. She has also submitted that once the selection of the appellant was made under the recommendation made by the JSSC, there was no scope to disturb the appellant without initiating any departmental proceedings. It has been stated that the dispute would have been set at rest if the candidature of the appellant was considered under the appropriate category i.e. BC-II (female) category, in which not even one candidate has been selected. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent JSSC has submitted that once the fact that the appellant did not belong to the BC-II category came to light, they immediately took steps resulting in the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition. 18. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent JSSC has submitted that once the fact that the appellant did not belong to the BC-II category came to light, they immediately took steps resulting in the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the appellant had applied under the BC-I category vide online application submitted on 15.10.2015 which did not require simultaneous submission of the caste certificate. Rather, as per the advertisement clause 8(iii) the only condition prescribed for claiming reservation was that the caste certificate should be issued after 31st of March 2015. This means that even if the caste certificate was not available, a candidate could apply under the reserved category and later on obtain the caste certificate for production at the time of verification of certificates. There was no legal bar in obtaining the caste certificate after filing the form under the Advertisement. 19. After submitting the form, the appellant applied for the issuance of the caste certificate which was issued to her only on 24.12.2016. The appellant did not possess an online caste certificate and therefore she was directed to submit the caste certificate physically which she also did vide her application dated 11.01.2017 and after verification, the appellant was inducted in service and duly joined. 20. It is apparent from the aforesaid circular dated 18.12.2015, that the category under which one or the other person would belong i.e. BC-1 or BC-II was amended even as late as on 18th of December 2015, that is, even after the last date of filing the application form under the advertisement, 15.10.2015. When the appellant was required to produce her caste certificate, she produced her caste certificate which disclosed that the appellant belonged to the BC-II category falling under the broad category of “other backward classes” consisting of BC-I and BC-II categories. 21. The respondents have considered the candidature of the appellant under the unreserved female category instead of considering her candidature under the category she belongs, that is, the BC-II (female) category, to which not even a single candidate was selected and the appellant had the required marks for selection under BC-II (female) category . 21. The respondents have considered the candidature of the appellant under the unreserved female category instead of considering her candidature under the category she belongs, that is, the BC-II (female) category, to which not even a single candidate was selected and the appellant had the required marks for selection under BC-II (female) category . The respondents have referred to clause 9 of the advertisement which nowhere provides that if the appropriate certificate is not produced, the candidature will be considered under the unreserved category. Clause 9 of the advertisement is quoted as under: - “9. ON LINE vkosnu i= dks Hkjuk %& vkuW&ykbu vkosnu dks Hkjus ds fy;s fn, x;s fn'kk funsZ'k dks v{kj'k% ikyu djsA vkosnu i= es nh xbZ lwpukvksa ls iw.kZ larq"V gksus ds i'pkr gh vkosnu i= dks tek ¼lcfeV½ djsA vkosnu i= Hkjus ds fy, vk;ksx ds osCklkbV www.jssc.in ij tk,W ,oa Online Application for JCCE-2015 ij Click djs rFkk vkosnu i= HkjsA ,d vH;FkhZ flQZ ,d ftyk cy vFkok >kj[k.M l'kL= iqfyl dh okfguh dh fjfDr;ksa es ls dksbZ ,d fjfDr ds fo:) rFkk mRikn vkj{kh ds in ds fy, vkosnu ns ldrs gSA ftyk iqfyl cy dh fjfDr;ksa dk fodYi nsus dh fLFkfr esa vH;FkhZ ek= fdlh ,d ftyk fo'ks"k dh fjfDr ds fo:) vkosnu dj ldrs gS rFkk ml ftyk ds fy, fpfagr l'kL= iqfyl okfguh ds fy, vkosnu nsus dh fLFkfr esa lHkh ftyksa ds fy, fpfagr {ks=h;@tutkfr; Hkk"kkvks esa ls fdlh ,d Hkk"kk dk p;u ijh{kk ds fy, dj ldrs gSA vH;FkhZ dks p;fur Hkk”kk dh ijh{kk nsuh gksxhA vH;FkhZ ftl ftyk vFkok okfguh ds fy, vkosnu djsaxs mlh ftyk@okfguh dh fjfDr ds fo:) p;u gsrq fopkj.kh; gksaxsA vkosndksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnu lcfeV djus ds iwoZ Hkjs x;s vkosnu dks Bhd ls ns[k ysA ;fn dksbZ =qfV gS rks mls lq/kkj dj gh vkosnu lcfeV djsA ,d ckj vkosnu lcfeV djus ds i'pkr ijh{kkQy dks izHkkfor djus okys fdlh Hkh izfof"V esa lq/kkj dk dksbZ Hkh nkok ekU; ugha gksxk vkSj Hkjs x;s vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij gh vkosnd dh ijh{kk yh tk;sxhA ftykokj fpafgRk tutkrh; Hkk"kk@{ks=h; Hkk"kk dh fooj.kh ifjf'k"V 4 ij gSA izR;sd ftyk cy ,oa >kj[kaM l'kL= iqfyl dh okfguh ds fy, vyx&vyx es/kklwph@p;u lwph xfBr dh tk;sxhA^^ 22. The candidature of the appellant was considered under the unreserved female category when it was found that she possesses the caste certificate of the BC-II category and not of the BC-I Category. The fact remains that no person has been selected under reserved BC-II (female) and as per the records the appellant was otherwise qualified for appointment and was duly appointed under the BC-I(female) category and working when she was removed from service. The fact remains that appellant scored 110 marks and was a meritorious candidate who would have been automatically selected in the BC-II(female) category. 23. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers discretionary powers on the State to make reservations in the matter of appointment in favour of “backward classes of citizens” who in its opinion are not adequately represented either numerically or qualitatively in services of the State, but it confers no constitutional rights upon the members of the backward class to claim reservation. 24. The backward classes of citizens include scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and other backward class candidates. “Other Backward Class” is a collective term that is used to classify castes that are educationally or socially disadvantaged and they are other than those who fall under the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe category. Backward class (B.C.)-1 and Backward class (B.C.)-II are caste categories falling under the broad category of “Other Backward Classes”. Rejection of the candidature of the appellant from the BC-II (female) category on the mere ground of not submitting the caste certificate of the BC-I category and instead submitting the caste certificate under the BC-II category will only result in virtually throwing out a meritorious candidate under the category she belongs. 25. There is another aspect of the matter when this case is seen in the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 14th June 2022 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2019 (Ranjeet Prabhakar versus the State of Jharkhand) against which Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14377 of 2022 has also been dismissed. 26. 25. There is another aspect of the matter when this case is seen in the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 14th June 2022 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2019 (Ranjeet Prabhakar versus the State of Jharkhand) against which Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14377 of 2022 has also been dismissed. 26. In the case of Ranjeet Prabhakar (supra) the appellant had applied in the selection process under the BC-II category under Advertisement issued on 5th November 2014 by JSSC but his candidature was treated under general category only on the ground that he had applied under the BC-II category but had produced caste certificate under the BC-1 category. After the advertisement, vide resolution dated 18.12.2015, the caste category in the State of Jharkhand was restructured and the caste sundi was brought in the list of BC-I from BC-II and consequently, he produced the caste certificate issued under B.C. I category at the time of verification. This Court considered the fact that the appellant had secured more marks than the last selected candidate under BC-I category and even for BC-II, the cut-off marks were less than the marks secured by the appellant. The Court also considered the number of unfilled vacancies and found that there were still vacancies under BC-I category as well as BC-II category and directed the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) to recommend the case of the appellant under the BC-I category though the appellant had applied under the BC-II category. 27. As mentioned above, in the present case, the Advertisement dated 01.05.2015 did not require submission of the caste certificate along with the application and the only rider was that it should be issued after 31.03.2015 and the caste status was to be governed by the notifications issued from time to time. Much after the issuance of the advertisement and before the date of verification of the documents, there have been inter-se changes made in the list of the reserved category classification and lastly vide notification dated 18th December 2015 and therefore there was lot of confusion in the minds of the candidates as regards the declaration of caste status at the time of submitting the form. 28. 28. There can also be a situation in which a caste not falling under the BC category is included by a subsequent notification or a caste falling under the BC category is excluded by a notification after the advertisement and before the date of verification of the certificates. The fact remains that there have been changes concerning one or the other caste falling under the broad category of “other backward classes”. No particular date regarding the caste status having been provided in the advertisement, the candidature was tentative subject to the production of caste certificate at the stage of verification of certificates. Under such circumstances, a candidate falling under ‘other backward classes’ may fall under the list of BC-1 or BC-II depending upon notification issued from time to time till the stage of verification of the documents. 29. Enabling the candidates to obtain a caste certificate after applying and not providing any date concerning the caste status for considering the candidature under one or the other category or sub-category is bound to create such problems/uncertainty regarding caste status falling under one or the other sub-category BC-I or BC-II within the broad category of ‘other backward classes’. 30. The list of castes under BC- I category or BC-II category concerning one or the other community having remained fluid the benefit should go to the appellant as the advertisement did not require that the candidate should have a caste certificate at the time of filing of application or on any particular cut-off date. In such circumstances, the candidature of the appellant was required to be considered under the BC-II (female) category whose certificate was produced by the appellant at the time of verification of the certificate and not under the general category (female) on account of non-production of caste certificate of BC-I category for which she had applied. 31. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned writ Court which has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that it is a settled principle of law that every selection process has to be completed strictly in terms of the advertisement. 31. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned writ Court which has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that it is a settled principle of law that every selection process has to be completed strictly in terms of the advertisement. Further, the learned writ Court has also quoted paragraph 6 of the judgment passed in the case of “Rohan Thakur versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2019 (3) JBCJ 44 (HC) where under the advertisement there was a specific provision to upload the caste certificate at the time of submission of form failing which the candidate was to be treated under general category. There is no such provision in the advertisement involved in the present case. 32. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the writ Court is set aside and the order impugned in the writ petition, that is, Bokaro District Force Order no. 2111 of 2018 contained in Memo no. 3907 dated 29.10.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 discharging the appellant from the service is also set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with continuity of service but without any back wages. 33. This appeal is accordingly allowed. 34. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.