JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction commanding upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained (PGT) Teacher in +2 Schools of the State of Jharkhand in the subject Sanskrit under most backward caste (MBC) category pursuant to Advertisement No.74/2011 dated 23.07.2011. Relief has been sought on the ground that he secured 220 marks; whereas the last selected candidate in the MBC category has scored only 212 marks. The petitioner has also sought a relief to quash the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 as contained in Memo No.175 dated 20.07.2012. The respondent no.4 was ordered to be deleted by order dated 23.06.2016 and respondent no.5 was renumbered as 4. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2011 Jharkhand Academic Council published Advertisement No.74 of 2011 for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in +2 School of the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner being eligible applied and he was issued Admit Card. The caste certificate of the petitioner granted by Sub Divisional Officer, Medininagar has been placed on record as Annexure-3 which establishes that he belongs to MBC category. The result was also published and the same is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner has been declared successful. However, the fact remains that the persons who obtained 212 marks were appointed; whereas the petitioner who obtained 220 marks in the subject Sanskrit has been denied appointment. 4. Further fact reveals that the appointment has been denied on the ground that this petitioner has mentioned in Column-12 of the application form that he is a Government Teacher. Whereas the requirement was that he should have been a Government Secondary (High) School Teacher to get appointment in 50% quota under the Advertisement which was earmarked for Government Secondary School Teachers. 5. The case of the petitioner is that since he was a Government Primary School Teacher, he mentioned as against Column 12 that he is a Government Teacher. The words “Secondary (High)”, were cut and then the word “Yes” has been mentioned as against Column 12. Vide order dated 26.09.2013 passed in this writ petition the petitioner was directed to clarify whether he claims appointment on the basis of quota meant for the Secondary School Teacher. The words “Secondary (High)”, were cut and then the word “Yes” has been mentioned as against Column 12. Vide order dated 26.09.2013 passed in this writ petition the petitioner was directed to clarify whether he claims appointment on the basis of quota meant for the Secondary School Teacher. As per the direction, the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit on 11.12.2013 mentioning, inter alia, that the petitioner was not claiming his appointment on the basis of quota made for Secondary School Teacher but he claimed that his case be considered in most backward class (MBC) category and not on the basis of the Teacher of the Secondary School. 6. Mr. Manoj Tandon learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the decision of the respondents not to appoint the petitioner is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is pointed out that his case should have been considered in open category without considering the quota earmarked for Secondary School Teachers. In the open category of 50%, as per the Advertisement, the case of the petitioner should have been considered in view of the fact that admittedly he has scored 220 marks; whereas the last selection in his category was made on the basis of 212 marks only. He further submits that, even admitting the stand of the respondents, mere on some technicalities the respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioner. He submits that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the merit position and the marks obtained by him. 7. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent-State and Jharkhand Academic Council submit that the petitioner has committed illegality and hence despite scoring more marks he is not fit to be appointed. Since the petitioner has mentioned against Column 12 the word “Yes” and despite the fact that he has cut the words “Secondary (High)”, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. But, however, it is not denied by the respondents that this petitioner has scored 220 marks and the last selection in the MBC category has been made on 212 marks only. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case; admittedly, the petitioner belongs to MBC category and the marks obtained by him is 220; whereas the last selected candidate in this category has secured only 2012 marks. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case; admittedly, the petitioner belongs to MBC category and the marks obtained by him is 220; whereas the last selected candidate in this category has secured only 2012 marks. In this view of the matter the petitioner has legitimate expectation of his being selected as he scored more marks than the last selected candidate. 9. Merely because this petitioner mentioned the word “Yes” against Column 12, would not deprive him of his being appointed as he has scored much more marks than the last selected candidate. The respondents cannot be given license to act in such an arbitrary manner as is reflected from the facts of the present case. Right of consideration for appointment is inbuilt in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . A person scoring more marks has been ousted from the purview of appointment and the person having lesser marks has been appointed. This would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . 10. From bare perusal of Column 12 of the application form of the petitioner which is placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, it appears that there is nothing wrong committed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was a Primary School Teacher, he has mentioned that he is a Government Teacher. The words “Secondary (High)” have been cut. This further therefore, reflects that he is merely a Government Teacher not a Secondary (High) School Teacher. 11. Moreover, the petitioner was not claiming any benefit of his being a Teacher and he wanted his case to be considered in the rest 50% post as per the Advertisement which was meant for open category. Since the petitioner has scored more marks than the last selected candidate, it would be highly unreasonable if the petitioner is not appointed. Reference in this context may be made to the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P.(s) No.6657 of 2024 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.04.2025. In that case the writ petitioner was claiming reservation but he marked “No” at Column No.13 of the application form. Because of this reason, he was not being declared successful. The State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P.(s) No.6657 of 2024 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.04.2025. In that case the writ petitioner was claiming reservation but he marked “No” at Column No.13 of the application form. Because of this reason, he was not being declared successful. The Division Bench of this Court held that since the candidate was entitled under the law, as he scored more marks in his category than the last candidate, he could not be ousted from the purview of candidature. It was held that there cannot be any estoppel against the fundamental rights. Referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basheshar Nath Vs. CIT , reported in (1959) 35 ITR 190 and Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation , reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 , the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition. The said order was challenged by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20375/2025 but the same was dismissed on 04.08.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The judgment therefore, was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 12. In the light of the above observation, interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner after completing the formalities within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. Since the matters relates to the Advertisement of the year 2011, the writ petition was filed in the year 2013 but the same remained pending before this Court; this court is not inclined to set aside the appointment of respondent no.4 at this belated stage. But at the same time, the petitioner is fit to be appointed on the post vacant, if any. It is further clarified that if the post is not vacant in his category, a supernumerary post shall be created by the respondent-State for this petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.