JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the subject ‘History and Civics’ (Direct Recruitment) for Deoghar district pursuant to Advertisement No.21/2016 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) for making appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers of different subjects in Government Secondary Schools of all the districts of the State of Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the part of the important notice No.6864 dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure-10), so far it relates to the petitioner whose rejection remark has been mentioned at Serial No.8 of the subject ‘History and Civics’ (Direct Recruitment), whereby his candidature has been treated under unreserved category despite producing the certificate of BC-II category dated 17.03.2018 in course of document verification. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Advertisement No.21/2016 was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) for conducting Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 with respect to appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher of various subjects including the subject History and Civics in Government Secondary Schools of the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for appointment on the said post in the subject ‘History and Civics’ under Direct Recruitment being a candidate of BC-II category and appeared in the written examination held on 19.11.2017. He qualified in the written examination and by way of an important notice he was asked to appear for documents verification on 26.09.2018 whereupon he appeared and produced all the required certificates including caste certificates dated 19.12.2016 and 17.03.2018 issued by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, respectively. However, a show cause notice dated 26.09.2018 was issued to the petitioner whereby he was asked to produce valid caste certificate by 03.10.2018, as he had submitted caste certificate of BC-II category issued by the Circle Officer at the time of filling up online application form. The petitioner replied the said notice stating inter alia that the caste certificate dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar should be considered for extending the benefit of reservation under BC-II category. However, in the final result published and uploaded on the website of the Commission, the roll number of the petitioner did not figure. The petitioner replied the said notice stating inter alia that the caste certificate dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar should be considered for extending the benefit of reservation under BC-II category. However, in the final result published and uploaded on the website of the Commission, the roll number of the petitioner did not figure. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed vide important notice No.6864 dated 05.12.2018 that his caste certificate of B.C.-II category was rejected and he was treated under unreserved category. Subsequently, he made a representation before the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi on 31.12.2018 requesting to consider his case for appointment under BC-II category which remained unresponded. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner secured 232 marks, whereas the last selected candidate under BC-II category secured 228 marks and as such he has got more marks than the last selected candidate of BC-II category, however, since the petitioner was not treated under BC-II category, he was not selected for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject ‘History and Civics’ pursuant to the said advertisement. 4. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent-JSSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner under BC-II category is highly arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power in view of the fact that on the date of counselling/document verification, he had produced all the certificates including caste certificate dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar. The respondents were duty bound to treat the petitioner’s candidature under BC-II category, as he had produced a valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority on the date of counselling. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC submits that the JSSC had published the said advertisement for conducting Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 and the petitioner had submitted his online application form for selection on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject ‘History and Civics’ for Deoghar district under BC-II Category. The JSSC conducted written examination and the shortlisted candidates were called for documents verification. Thereafter, merit list was prepared and successful candidates were recommended for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects. The petitioner was not declared successful for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject ‘History & Civics’. The JSSC conducted written examination and the shortlisted candidates were called for documents verification. Thereafter, merit list was prepared and successful candidates were recommended for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects. The petitioner was not declared successful for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject ‘History & Civics’. He was informed vide Important Notice No.6864 dated 05.12.2018 that his candidature was considered under general category due to non-submission of valid caste certificate of BC-II category till last date of submission of application form i.e. on 25.04.2017. Further, the final result of the said examination became the subject matter of various writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) and other analogous cases filed before this Court. The said writ petitions were allowed by the Full Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.09.2020, reported in (2020) 4 JBCI 207 (FB) (HC), by quashing the appointments made in the scheduled districts observing that reserving the posts by the State for those who were residents of particular districts of the State of Jharkhand was unconstitutional. The said judgment of the Full Bench was challenged by the appointed candidates of the scheduled districts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 [Satyajit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and other analogous appeals. Thereafter, in the light of the judgment dated 2.8.2022 passed in the said appeals, reported in (2022) SCC online SC 954, and the orders dated 2.12.2022 & 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.612/2022 arising out of Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar and Ors.) and other analogous cases, the JSSC published the revised result on the basis of State-wise merit list, in which the petitioner was not declared successful, as he had secured 232 marks, whereas the last successful candidate under BC-II category for subject ‘History and Civics’ had secured 242 marks. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner produced valid caste certificate of BC-II category in course of document verification, however, his candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher was arbitrarily considered under general category. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner produced valid caste certificate of BC-II category in course of document verification, however, his candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher was arbitrarily considered under general category. It has further been contended that since the petitioner had secured more marks than the last selected candidate under BC-II category for the subject ‘History and Civics’, he has indefeasible right to be considered for appointment under the said category. 8. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the Important Notice no.6864 dated 05.12.2018 from which it transpires that the candidature of the petitioner for the post of TGT (History and Civics) under BC-II category was not considered on the ground that he had failed to produce valid caste certificate as per clause 4(K)(V)(ii) of the said notice till last date of submission of the application (i.e. till 25.04.2017) and as such his candidature was considered under general category. 9. Clause 8(V)(i) of the Advertisement No.21/2016 provides that a candidate who is claiming reservation is required to submit caste certificate issued in the prescribed format by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned district/sub-division. For BC-II category, the candidate was required to submit caste certificate in the format given in Appendix-II of the said advertisement. Further, the caste certificate was essentially required to be issued after 02.06.2016 and before or till the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 25.4.2017. Clause 9(ii) of the said advertisement further mentions that the candidate was required to fill the certificate number and date of issuance of the caste certificate in the online application form. 10. The claim of the petitioner is that at the time of document verification he had produced two caste certificates; one issued on 19.12.2016 by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur and another issued on 17.03.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. So far as the caste certificate dated 19.12.2016 was concerned, the same was not issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer as was mandated in Clause 8 of the said advertisement and as such it was not accepted. So far as the caste certificate dated 19.12.2016 was concerned, the same was not issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer as was mandated in Clause 8 of the said advertisement and as such it was not accepted. So far as the caste certificate dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was concerned, the same was issued after the last date of submission of the application form and obviously details of the same was not mentioned in the online application form and as such the said caste certificate was also not accepted by the respondent-JSSC as valid for consideration of his candidature under BC-II category. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent-JSSC in treating the petitioner under general/unreserved category candidate. 11. That apart, the specific stand of the respondent-JSSC is that as per State wise merit list prepared pursuant to the order dated 2.8.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyajit Kumar (Supra.) and orders dated 2.12.2022 & 15.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 arising out of Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar and Ors.) and other analogous cases, the last selected candidate under BC-II category for the subject History and Civics secured 242 marks whereas the petitioner secured 232 marks. Thus, even if the candidature of the petitioner is treated under BC-II category, he is not entitled to be selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher in the said subject. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the last selected candidate under BC-II category for subject ‘History & Civics’ has in fact secured 228 marks and in support of the said contention he has annexed the chart of subject-wise marks obtained by the last selected candidate(s) under different categories. The said chart appears to be the merit list of Deoghar district prepared before passing the orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyajit Kumar (Supra.) and the aforesaid contempt petition. Learned counsel puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and submits that the reason of any decision cannot be supplemented by way of a counter affidavit. 13. Learned counsel puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and submits that the reason of any decision cannot be supplemented by way of a counter affidavit. 13. This Court is of the view that the said judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC has not tried to supplement the reason for rejection, rather he has stated the development subsequent to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyajit Kumar (Supra.) and in the aforesaid contempt petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.