Order : 1. This appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1692 of 2019, by which the learned Single Judge has refused to pass positive directions in favour of the writ petitioner for her appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). Factual Matrix 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, as has been incorporated in the memo of appeal and the impugned order, read as under: - “The respondent-JSSC published an advertisement being Advertisement no.21 of 2016 for appointment of TGT. The petitioner submitted online application form on 24 th March, 2017 for the said post in the subject ‘Hindi’ under Scheduled Tribes category along with other relevant documents including educational qualification. Pursuant thereto, provisional admit card was issued to her to appear in the said examination. She having qualified in the written test was issued notice by the respondent-JSSC for verification of the certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the said verification before the respondent-JSSC on 28 th September, 2018 with all relevant documents as mentioned in the advertisement, however, on the said date itself i.e. 28 th September, 2018 the respondent-JSSC issued notice to the petitioner vide letter no.4642 informing her to submit caste certificate issued in the name of her father. The petitioner had passed matriculation examination from Government Girls School, Dumka in the year 1994. Thereafter, she passed intermediate examination from S.P. Mahila College, Dumka in the year 1996 and marks-sheet was issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. The petitioner also passed graduation examination from Siddhu-Kanhu University, Dumka in the year 2000 and subsequently passed B.Ed. examination in the year 2007 from the said University. The petitioner had submitted residential certificate showing her place of residence as village-Godaidhab, Gram Panchayat- Bhatbhanga Santhali, Block-Taljhari, Post Office-Taljhari, P.S.- Taljhari, District-Sahebganj. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 28th September, 2018, the petitioner submitted another caste certificate issued in the name of her father by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka (Bihar), showing that she/her father belong to Santhal community coming under S.T. category. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 28th September, 2018, the petitioner submitted another caste certificate issued in the name of her father by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka (Bihar), showing that she/her father belong to Santhal community coming under S.T. category. Despite the said fact, the petitioner’s candidature under S.T. category was not considered, rather her candidature was considered under unreserved category, as would be evident from important notice no.2522 dated 14 th February, 2019 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit dated 1 st December, 2023 filed on behalf of the respondent-JSSC). The said action of the respondent- JSSC is highly arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioner despite being a member of S.T. community and being the resident of the State of Jharkhand, her candidature was not considered under the said category and due to the said reason, the appointment letter was finally not issued to her.” 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, in pursuance to advertisement, being Advertisement No.21 of 2016 issued for appointment of Trained Graduate Teacher has submitted online application for the post in the subject “Hindi” under Scheduled Tribes category. The candidature of writ petitioner was accepted. She had participated in the process of selection. But at the time of verification of the documents, her candidature under the Scheduled Tribes category has been refused to be accepted on the ground that the caste certificate furnished by the writ petitioner was issued from the successor State of Bihar on 04.10.2018 issued from the office of the Sub Divisional Office, Banka (Bihar). 4. The writ petitioner, appellant herein, being aggrieved thereto has approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 1692 of 2019, the present one, seeking wherein direction to accept her candidature and consider the candidature under the Scheduled Tribes category and consequently, she be appointed, since, she has obtained the marks higher than the candidate, who has found to be the last selected candidate under the Scheduled Tribes category. 5. 5. The respondents, particularly, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, respondent no.5 to the writ petition, has contested the case by filing counter affidavit, wherein the stand inter alia has been taken that since the caste certificate issued after 15.11.2000 by the functionary of the successor State of Bihar, no benefit of reservation is to be given in pursuance to the conditions stipulated under the advertisement in terms of Clause 8(V)(i)(ii)&(iii) as well as Clause 9(ii) of the advertisement in question. 6. The learned Single Judge has considered the rival submission made on behalf of the parties and agreed to the view taken by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and consequently the writ petition has been dismissed, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the writ- petitioner 7. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that accepting the candidature at the first instance, allowing the writ petitioner to participate in the process of selection, but subsequent thereto, the rejection of the candidature, cannot be said to be just and proper, as has been done by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC 8. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC has submitted that mainly because the writ petitioner has been allowed to participate in the process of selection, that does not confer any right if subsequently the very basis upon which the benefit of reservation sought for, has been found to be not acceptable as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement inserted inpursuant to the Jharkhand Reservation Policy, 2001 and various circulars issued time to time. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that herein the reference of the caste category has been made by the writ petitioner while submitting the online application, wherein specific stipulation has been made in the advertisement that the document will be verified after the merit list have been prepared. 10. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that herein the reference of the caste category has been made by the writ petitioner while submitting the online application, wherein specific stipulation has been made in the advertisement that the document will be verified after the merit list have been prepared. 10. The candidature of the writ petitioner although has been accepted under the Scheduled Tribes category based upon the caste category furnished by her at the time of submission of online application, but on verification, during the time of verification of document, the caste certificate has not been found to be in consonance with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, particularly, Clause 8(V)(i)(ii) & (iii) as well as Clause 9(ii) of the advertisement. 11. The ground, therefore, has been taken that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and putting reliance upon the terms and conditions of the advertisement, no relief has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, hence, the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error, hence, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submission, we are of the view that the ground taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment is the non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, particularly, Clause 8(V)(i)(ii) & (iii) as well as Clause 9(ii) of the advertisement, for its reference, the said clauses have been referred herein: 13. The law is well settled that if any condition has been stipulated in the advertisement, the same is strictly adhere to, reference in this regard has been made to the judgment dated 09.06.2025 passed by this Court in LPA No. 530 of 2024 and judgment dated 26.08.2025 passed by this Court in LPA No. 183 of 2024. 14. Any deviation from the terms and conditions of advertisement will amount to relaxation which is not permitted to be given in favour of any of the candidate, otherwise, the same will breach the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India while granting relaxation to one candidate and leaving out the other identically based candidature of the candidates. 15. Any deviation from the terms and conditions of advertisement will amount to relaxation which is not permitted to be given in favour of any of the candidate, otherwise, the same will breach the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India while granting relaxation to one candidate and leaving out the other identically based candidature of the candidates. 15. The ground which has been raised that by accepting the candidature at the initial stage and subsequently rejecting it cannot be said to have substance, reason being that on the basis of the faith/trust, the examining body has accepted the candidature of the writ petitioner based upon the details furnished in the online application submitted at the threshold. But at the time of verification of document, it has been found that the caste certificate is not in consonance with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. 16. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect, as has been admitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant and adverting to the order passed by the learned Single Judge has found that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the specific plea taken by the JSSC as would be evident from the paragraph-4 of the impugned judgment, wherein the specific stand has been taken that the caste certificate appended with the application at the time of document verification has not been found to be in consonance with the terms and conditions of advertisement. 17. It has further been taken note that the principle of natural justice has also been complied with by issuance of show- cause which has been responded by the writ petitioner, wherein the aforesaid fact of the caste certificate issued by the functionary of the existing State of Bihar on 04.10.2018 has been relied upon. 18. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the similar issue which is the matter of contention herein has already been adjudicated by this Court in the case of the Pawan Oraon vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in LPA No. 530 of 2024, wherein also the caste certificate was found to be not in pursuance to due format as referred in the advertisement, therefore the respondent JPSC had rejected the candidature of the petitioner. in LPA No. 530 of 2024, wherein also the caste certificate was found to be not in pursuance to due format as referred in the advertisement, therefore the respondent JPSC had rejected the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the JPSC had preferred the writ petition but the said petition was dismissed, thereafter, the appeal being LPA No. 530 of 2024 has been preferred before this Court but the said LPA has also been dismissed by this Court by observing that if the caste certificate has not been submitted on the basis of the condition stipulated in advertisement in such circumstances, the Commission has rejected the candidature of the appellant- petitioner for its consideration under the ST category and the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: 37. This Court applying the aforesaid settled position of law as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and taking into account the condition stipulated under Clause 7(a) and 7(c)(i) of the said Advertisement is of the view that the condition stipulated in Clause 7(a) and 7(c)(i) is mandatory and if the said condition is not been complied with by not submitting the caste certificate on the basis of the due format as contained in the advertisement itself, then no benefit of reservation is to be given to one or the other candidate, rather, the candidature is required to be considered under the unreserved category. 38. The reference is also required to be made herein the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) wherein considering the same circular related to the non-submission of the condition stipulated in advertisement by not submitting the caste certificate based upon the format as contained therein, this Court has decided the issue that due to non-submission of caste certificate in the due format as provided in the advertisement, the candidature is not required to be considered for the purpose of giving benefit of reservation, the relevant part along with the factual aspect needs to be refer herein which reads as under: ............................................................................................... 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra) has also taken into consideration the fact about the non-submission of the caste certificate not in the due format as provided has been pleased to hold that no benefit can be given of the reservation to the candidate claiming to be under the reserved category, the reference of the relevant paragraph along with the case facts are referred herein which reads as under: ............................................................................................... 40. This Court after having referred the aforesaid judgments and adverting to the factual aspect of the present case wherein admitted case of the appellant-petitioner that he has not submitted the caste certificate based upon the due format as provided under Clause 7(a) and 7 (c) (i)of the advertisement. 41. The consequence has also been provided in Condition No. 7(b) therefore, the Commission after taking into consideration the Clause No. 7(a) read with Condition No. 7(b) has not considered the candidature of the appellant-petitioner under reserved category. 42. Although, the candidature of the appellant-petitioner has been accepted at the initial stage by allowing him by participating in the preliminary examination and thereafter in the written examination but as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement contained in condition no. 7(b), the Document Verification along with caste certificate is to be verified at the time of Interview. For ready reference, the said condition is being referred herein which reads as under: ............................................................................................... 43. The appellant-petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that candidature since has been accepted at the time of participating in the preliminary examination and the written examination and as such at the time of interview, during verification of document, the candidature of the appellant should not have been rejected. 44. But this Court is not impressed with such argument, reason being that in view of the specific condition stipulated in the advertisement under Clause 7(b) wherein it has been provided that the Document Verification including the caste certificate is to be verified at the time of the Interview. The Commission, at the time of scrutiny of document, has found that the caste certificate of the appellant is not in terms of the condition stipulated in the Clause 7(a) and 7 (c) (i) and as such his candidature has been rejected. 45. The Commission, at the time of scrutiny of document, has found that the caste certificate of the appellant is not in terms of the condition stipulated in the Clause 7(a) and 7 (c) (i) and as such his candidature has been rejected. 45. The appellant-petitioner thereafter has approached this Court by filing writ petition by taking the ground that the caste certificate was there, but the learned Single Judge has not accepted such submission due to two reasons. i.e., the caste certificate, based upon which the claim of reservation had been claimed, is not in the due format as per the stipulation made the advertisement. 46. The second ground is that the caste certificate which has been produced by the appellant-petitioner is made only for the purpose of consideration of appointment to the posts/admission to the Central Educational Institution (C.E.I.s) under the Government of India. 47. The aforesaid view having been taken by the learned Single Judge, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error due to the following reasons: (i) The conditions stipulated in the advertisement if coupled with the consequence is considered to be mandatory as discussed and referred herein above. (ii) The admitted case of the appellant-petitioner that the caste certificate is not on the basis of the due format as provided under Clause 7(c)(i) and hence in view of the aforesaid admitted fact based upon the consequence, if the caste certificate has not been submitted on the basis of the condition stipulated in advertisement in such circumstances, the Commission has rejected the candidature of the appellant-petitioner for its consideration under the ST category and the same cannot be said to be suffer from an error. (iii) The aforesaid condition has been taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) wherein also the view which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has been upheld. (iii) The aforesaid condition has been taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) wherein also the view which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has been upheld. (iv) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (supra) has pleased to hold that the condition stipulated in the advertisement so far as lays to the submission of caste certificate in due format which is mandatory to be followed and if it has not been followed, then the consequence, would be the rejection of the candidature here in the ST category, so as not have any benefit of reservation. ............................................................................................... 48. This Court after having discussed the aforesaid fact and adverting to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has primarily taken into consideration the condition stipulated in Condition No. 7(a) and (c)(i) along with the consequence and considering also the admitted fact that the appellant- petitioner had failed to produce the caste certificate in terms of the said clause, rather the caste certificate which was produced for the purpose of consideration of appointment to the posts/admission to the Central Educational Institution (C.E.I.s) under the Government of India. 19. The reference is also required to be made herein, the order passed by this Court in the case of Sher Mohammad vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in LPA No. 183 of 2024, wherein also the similar issue has been dealt with. 19. The reference is also required to be made herein, the order passed by this Court in the case of Sher Mohammad vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in LPA No. 183 of 2024, wherein also the similar issue has been dealt with. In the aforesaid case this Court while deciding the issue that whether the candidature of the writ petitioner-appellant can be rejected, on the ground of Caste Certificate, after the writ petitioner having been allowed to participate in the written examination [PT and Mains] and even interview on that Caste Certificate, has observed that the issue which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant that candidature ought not to have been rejected after allowing the writ petitioner to participate in the Preliminary Test and Main Examination is concerned, the same cannot be of any benefit to the writ petitioner due to the reason that if the format of the caste certificate itself is contrary to the condition stipulated in the advertisement then no right will be said to have accrued in favour of the writ petitioner during the course of recruitment process and if the same has been noticed by the Commission at the time of scrutiny of the documents and if the application has not been found to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and if in such circumstances, the candidature of the candidate has been rejected then it is not available for such candidate to take the ground that since the candidate has been allowed to participate in the process of selection, rejection of candidature of such candidate will be said to be unjustified rather if candidature will not be rejected then the action of the Commission will be unjustified in view of the fact that the condition stipulated in the advertisement will be flouted. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein which read as under: 52. It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85 . Paragraph 29 from the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: ............................................................................................... 53. Further it is also the settled position of law as settled by the Hon?ble Apex Court that in the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 , wherein at paragraph-12, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe which is being referred as under: ............................................................................................... 54. This Court, after adverting to the factual aspect as also the legal position, and coming back to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge wherein learned Single Judge has considered the judgment rendered by Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), upon which learned counsel for the appellant has put reliance and differentiating the said judgment in the facts involving the said case, as would be evident from paragraph 60 of the impugned judgment by coming out with the view that in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) there was no rule or condition in the advertisement with regards to production of the caste certificate and it was only while declaring the result, the requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before the cut-off date was introduced by the Selection Authority. But, in the present case there is a specific provision in the advertisement itself that the documents were required documents to be submitted along with the online form at the time of filling up the online form of the mains examination. 55. This Court is of the view that if the reliance is placed on the judgement passed in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) so as to consider the caste certificate produced by the petitioner after filling up the online form and mains examination form, that would amount to ignoring a vital condition of the advertisement. Such a course is not permissible under law. Thus, the judgment passed in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and other judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case in the light of the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement regarding production of caste certificate. 56. It is further evident from paragraph 54 to 58 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the condition stipulated in the advertisement being condition no. 10(iii)(ii) reading together with 12(a) and 12(q) and come to the conclusion that the certificate of the caste category dated 29.02.2020 was not in the due format as formulated by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand rather in the Central Format. 57. The Caste certificate dated 19.08.2017 which has been referred at paragraph 61 of the impugned judgment has not been produced by the writ petitioner rather for the first time same was produced before the learned writ Court and therefore, a pin-pointed question was asked to the writ petitioner as to whether the caste certificate dated 19.08.2017 has ever been submitted along with the application before the Commission, the answer of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, which was given before the learned writ Court was that the caste certificate dated 19.08.2017 was not ever submitted along with the application before the Commission rather the said certificate dated 19.08.2017 was produced for the first time before this Court. It is also admitted by the petitioner that in the caste certificate dated 29.02.2020, the error was only in terms of the format and was submitted along with the application and in this regard, the learned Single Judge has noted in paragraph 57 of the impugned judgment that aforesaid cast certificate dated 29.02.2020 was issued in Central Format and the content/specifications as to whether the petitioner belongs to BC-I or BC-II category was totally absent. Hence, the condition as stipulated in the advertisement of submitting the caste certificate in format prescribed as per letter no. 1754 dated 25.02.2019 issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand since has not been submitted, hence, the condition of the advertisement particularly clause 10(III)(ii) has not been followed and in that view of the matter, if the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that such cancellation of the candidature cannot be faulted with. 58. The aforesaid view as taken by learned Single Judge, as per the discussion made herein above, according to our considered view cannot be faulted with. 20. Herein also, the candidature of the writ petitioner although has been accepted under the Scheduled Tribes category based upon the caste category furnished by her at the time of submission of online application, but on verification, during the time of verification of document, the caste certificate has not been found to be in consonance with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement therefore if the caste certificate itself is contrary to the condition stipulated in the advertisement, then no right will be said to have accrued in favour of the writ petitioner during the course of recruitment process and if the same has been noticed by the Commission and if in such circumstances, the candidature of the appellant has been rejected then it is not available for the appellant to take the ground that since she has been allowed to participate in the process of selection, rejection of her candidature will be said to be unjustified. 21. 21. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and particularly taking into consideration the dictum of this Court in the case of Pawan Oraon (supra) and Sher Mohammad (supra), we are of the view that the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge need no interference by this Court and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 22. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.