Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 May, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020
---
Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar, D/o Sukru Kharia, R/o New
Area, Near Jogo Pahar, Morabadi, P.O. Morabadi, P.S. Bariatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its Office at Nepal
House, P.O. And P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman,
Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi.
4. Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular
Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.
5. Dr. Swati Murmu, C/o Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
6. Dr. Pooja Samanta, C/o Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
7. Dr. Raja Babu Hembram, C/o Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
8. Sumitra Hansda, C/o Secretary, Department of Health, Medical
Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 49 of 2020
----
Ms. Sabita Kumari, daughter of Naresh Yadav, resident of
Govind Nagar, Kamre, Ratu Road, PO Kamre, PS Ratu, Town
& District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Project
Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, Town & District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
3. The I.G. Prison, PO & PS Dhurwa, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary,
having Office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, PO & PS Namkom,
Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, PO & PS
Namkom, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents
1
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
WITH
L.P.A. No. 74 of 2020
----
1. Subhash Sharma, son of Ishwar Sharma, resident of
Village Muandu Tan Ward No.28, PO & PS Jhumri Tilaiya
District- Koderma.
2. Rupesh Kumar Yadav, son of Parmeshwar Yadav,
Resident of Tonkala, PO Jarhi, Police Station Dondari,
District Garhwa.
3. Nitesh Kumar Mandal, son of Bhola Mandal, resident of
Village Margadih, PO Ratabihiyar, PS Gandey, District
Giridih.
4. Ajay Kumar Bhogta, son of Kamlesh Ganjhu, R/o Village
Kakodih, PO Sanji, PS Ghatotand, Dist. Ramgarh.
5. Arun Kumar, son of Nemchand Saw, resident of Village
Kalhabad, PO & PS Barkatha, District- Hazaribagh.
... ... Appellants
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management having its Office
at 1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police having its Office at
HEC Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its
Secretary, having its Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 76 of 2020
----
1. Pawan Kumar Sahu, son of Dinesh Prasad Sahu, resident
of Dak Bunglow Road, Road No.2, PO PS Khunti, Dist.
Khunti, Jharkhand.
2. Jitendra Gop, son of Manmath Gop, resident of village
Sasia, PO Ettam, PS Basia, Dist. Gumla, Jharkhand.
3. Sanjay Kumar, son of Lalo Saw, resident of Jado Babu
Chowk, PO PS Boddom Bazar, Dist. Hazaribagh
Jharkhand.
4. Janmejay Kumar, son of Jagdish Ram Kewat, resident of
Kaparkatta Tand Main Road, Chitarpur, PO PS Chitarpur,
Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand 825101.
5. Rajdeep Yadav, son of Krishna Yadav, resident of House
No.24, Bharajo, PO Bharajo, PS Hazaribagh, Dist.
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
6. Arbind Kumar, son of Prameshwar Prasad, resident of
Kesra, PO PS Tatijharia, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
2
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management having its Office
at 1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its
Secretary, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS
Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
5. Deepak Kumar, son of Bechan Saw
6. Maghnath Mandal, son of Phani Bhushan Mandal
7. Pramod Kumar Mahto, son of Ramnaresh Mahto
8. Sudhir Kumar Yadav, son of Baleshwar Gope
9. Rajesh Ranjan, son of Surendra Prasad Bhagat
10. Sumit Saurabh, son of Shiv Shankar Prasad, resident of
Traport Gali, PO PS Jhumri Tilaiya, Dist. Koderma.
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 77 of 2020
----
1. Pradeep Kumar Mahto son of Jagdeo Mahto, resident of
Village Chano, PO Gossaibaliya, PS Barkagaon, Dist.
Hazaribag.
2. Akhilesh Kumar son of Amrit Prasad Yadav, resident of PO
Gumgi, PS Tisri, Dist. Giridih.
3. Sikandar Alam son of Aftab Alam, resident of Latehar, PO
& PS- Latehar, District- Latehar
4. Sanjeet Rana son of Ramchchandra Rana, resident of
village Pipradih, PO Nowadih, PS Markacho, Dist.
Koderma.
5. Yugesh Prasad son of Haricharan Saw resident of PO
Marbar, PS Mandu, Dist. Ramgarh.
6. Nitish Kumar son of Sunil Prasad, resident of PO Lari, PS
Rajrappa Project, Dist. Ramgarh.
7. Meenakshi Kumari, daughter of Narendra Kumar, resident
of Bhurkunda, PO PS Bhurkunda, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Appellants
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
3
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
5. Saroj Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
6. Meenketan Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
7. Saawan Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
8. Vishwajeet Tumbli, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
9. Rakesh Kumar Mahto, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
10. Ashish Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
11. Vinay Kumar Saw, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
12. Birendra Sharma, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
13. Suraj Chail, Sub-Inspector of Police through the Secretary,
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
14. Satish Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
15. Rajesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
16. Ramdew Das, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
17. Kabindra Kumar Poddar, Sub-Inspector of Police through
the Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
18. Anil Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
19. Bipin Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
20. Gaurav Bhagat, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
21. Sikendar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
22. Chhotoo Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
23. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
24. Krishna Kumar Gupta, Sub-Inspector of Police through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 87 of 2020
----
Sharvan Kumar son of Virendra Paswan, resident of Village
Nawadih Panari, P.S. Hunterganj District Chatra, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
5. Abhishek Kumar, son of Pradeep Kumar Rajak
6. Anup Kumar, son of Kapil Dev Rajak
7. Ajay Rajak, son of Suresh Rajak
8. Gopal Kumar, son of Ratan Rajwar
9. Deepak Rajak, son of Naresh Ram
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 88 of 2020
----
Prity Kachhap D/o Tijeshwar Bhagat, resident of Village
Chaukani, PO Hesway, PS Sneha Thana, Dist- Lohardaga
(Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
5
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
5. Sunila Linda daughter of Narsingh Oraon
6. Meera Lakra, daughter of Sukra Lakra
7. Shobha Toppo, daughter of Bisheshwar Toppo
8. Sabitri Kachhap, daughter of Somra Kachhap
9. Sujata Minj, daughter of Bishram Minj
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 92 of 2020
----
1. Sanjay Kumar son of Satish Ram resident of Village Itki PO
PS Itki Dist Ranchi.
2. Ameet Singh son of Ramdhari Yadav, resident of Village
Bhadauli, PO Sisai, PS Sisai, Dist Gumla.
3. Vikash Kumar Pandit son of Raj Kumar, resident of Village
Itki, PO PS Itki, Dist. Ranchi.
... ... Appellants
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi
5. Sunny Kumar Sunny, son of Bindeshwari Das
6. Ajay Kumar Ravidas, son of Jagdish Ravidas
7. Vivek Vishal, son of Shashi Bhushan Rajak
8. Anil Kumar Yada, son of Naijnath Yadav
9. Vikash Kumar, son of Arvind Prasad Yadav
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 103 of 2020
----
Ganesh Shankar Mahto son of Kanhu Kishore Mahato,
resident of Village Riding PO Kharsawan, PS Kharsawan,
Dist. Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
6
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 104 of 2020
----
Rashmi Oraon daughter of Late Puran Oraon, resident of
New Police Line Kanke Road, PO Ranchi University, PS
Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
5. Sunila Linda
6. Meera Lakra
7. Sobha Toppo
8. Sabitri Kachhap
9. Sujata Minz
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 105 of 2020
----
Md. Parwez Hussain, son of Md. Zahir Hussain, resident of
Nazir Ali Lane, Lower Bazar, PO Church Road, PS Lower
Bazar, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi ... ... Respondents
7
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
WITH
L.P.A. No. 114 of 2020
----
1. Anshika Priya daughter of Late Vinod Yadav, resident of
Bara Bazar Gwaltoli, PO Hazaribag and PS Sadar, District
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Devendra Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad Saw, resident of
Mango Chowk, PO Tupkadih, PS Balidih, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
3. Manoj Mahato son of Akhileshwar Mahato, resident of
Village Manjhiladih, PO Birajpur, PS Barwadda, District
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. Sugandha Verma D/o Sahdeo Verma, resident of Village
Okni, PO Hazaribag and PS Sadar and District
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
5. Kumar Gaurav S/o Puran Prasad Singh, resident of village
Jamua, PO Sabejor and PS Sarath and District Deoghar,
Jharkhand.
6. Niharika Singh D/o Lalan Singh, resident of village
Kalimanda Shiblibari Middle, PO Kumardhubi and PS
Chirkunda, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical
Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Circular Road, PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi.
4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, Circular Road, PO PS Lalpur, District Ranchi.
5. Sana Azam D/o Fakhar Azam Ansari, resident of village
Jamshedpur, PO Jugsalai and PS Jugsalai and District
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
6. Shruti Priyanka W/o Madan Kumar Sah, resident of village
Bhatdiha, PO Godda and PS Godda District Godda,
Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 115 of 2020
----
1. Manoj Kumar Gupta son of Late Jagdish Prasad Gupta,
resident of 1637 New Road, Meghdoot Sweets, PO
Phusro, PS Bermo, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand.
2. Sandhya Kumari Daughter of Rajendra Prasad Gupta,
resident of Suryavihar Colony, Prathmesh Apartment,
Galin No.5, Flat No.1 (A) Bartand, PS Dhaiya, Dist.
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
-versus-
8
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director, Primary
Secondary & Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand,
having Office at Project Building, PO PO Dhurwa, Dist.
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Primary Secondary & Higher Education,
Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Project
Building, PO PO Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Chairman,
having Office at Namkum, PO PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its
Controller of Examination, having Office at Namkum, PO
PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 117 of 2020
----
Neha Noopur D/o A.K. Rajak, W/o Bikash Kumar, R/o
Opposite SBI Customer Care, Telidih Road, PO
Narayanpur, PS Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 827013.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Ranchi, Circular Road, PO GPO, Ranchi 834001
3. Pooja Kumari
4. Kumar Arnav Swaroop
5. Preeti Kumari
6. Avinash Kumar Harza
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 125 of 2020
----
Kushma Kumari S/o Shri Mohan Gope, resident of Village
Nawagarh Serka, PO and PS Bishunpur, District Gumla.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Department of Human Resource and Development,
through its Principal Secretary, having Office at Project
Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi
5. Prabhat Ranjan
6. Rajiv Singh
7. Subhash Arya ... ... Respondents
9
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
WITH
L.P.A. No. 126 of 2020
----
Kumari Punam Jyoti D/o Shri Krishna Deo Prasad, resident of
Village Kesda, Tatijharia, Bishnugarh, PO PS Tatijharia,
District Hazaribagh.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Department of Human Resource and Development,
through its Principal Secretary, having Office at Project
Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi
5. Ravi Shankar
6. Vikas Kumar
7. Birendra Prasad
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 127 of 2020
----
Neha Kumari D/o Shri Om Prakash, resident of Village
Bhendra, Nawadih, PO Bhendra, PS Nawadih, District
Bokaro.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Department of Human Resource and Development,
through its Principal Secretary, having Office at Project
Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, District Ranchi.
5. Indu Kumari
6. Santosh Kumar Yadav
7. Rakesh Ranjan
... ... Respondents
WITH
10
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
L.P.A. No. 128 of 2020
----
Saheb Ali son of Shri Akbar Ali, resident of Village Karnal
Market, PO PS Marafari, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, having Office at 1st Floor, Project Bhawan,
PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its
Secretary having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS
Namkom, District Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi
6. Pankaj Sinduria
7. Mahesh Kumar
8. Suraj Chail ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 133 of 2020
Sunny Kumar Verma son of Krishna Nandan Verma, resident
of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Castair Town, Subhash
Chowk, PO PS Castair Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having Office at
1st Floor, Project Bhawan, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 183 of 2020
----
1. Raju Kumar Choudhari son of Raghunath Mahto, resident
of Kapilo, PO PS Suriya, District Giridih (Jharkhand).
2. Sanjay Kumar Sahu son of Gopi Chand Sahu, resident of
Rangamati, PO Roshanatunda (Isri Bazar), PS
Nimiyaghat, District Giridih (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellants
11
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management having Office at 1st Floor, Project Bhawan,
PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi
6. Ashish Kumar
7. Rakesh Kumar Mahato
8. Vishwajeet Tumbli
... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 193 of 2020
----
Pankaj Das son of Shri Om Prakash Das, resident of
Vivekanand Nagar, Nichitpur, PO PS Katras Bazar, District
Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ... ... Appellant
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster
Management, having Office at 1st Floor, Project Bhawan,
PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, having Office at HEC
Administrative Building, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO PS Namkom,
Dist. Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having Office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, PO
PS Namkom, Dist. Ranchi.
6. Saawan Kumar Sahu
7. Vinay Kumar Saw
8. Birendra Sharma ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 266 of 2020
----
Sonu Priya daughter of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of 8,
Tupudana, PO Hatia, PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant
-versus-
12
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS
Jagannathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary,
Kalinagar, Chhay Bagan, PO PS Namkum, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, PO PS Namkum, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, PO PS Namkum,
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Appellants: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Rajvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Deb Nandan Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
[L.P.A. Nos. 64 & 117 of 2020]
Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Sidhharth Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. K.S. Chhabra, Advocate
[L.P.A. Nos. 77 & 133 of 2020]
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Padmanav Shahdeo, Advocate
[L.P.A. Nos. 74, 76, 87, 88, 92, 103, 104 & 105 of 2020]
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate
Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate
[L.P.A. Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128, 183 & 193 of 2020]
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.
[L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020]
Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
[in all cases]
Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V
[L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020]
Mrs. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-II
[L.P.A. Nos. 128 & 183 of 2020]
13
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II
[L.P.A. No. 114 of 2020]
Ms. Ruchi Mukti, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA
[L.P.A. Nos. 74, 87, 92, 103 & 133 of 2020]
Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
[L.P.A. Nos. 76, 77, 88, 104, 105, 126 & 193 of 2020]
Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA-V
[L.P.A. No. 64 of 2020]
---
Reserved on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 07.05.2026
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
1. These appeals have been filed challenging the common order/judgment
dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ
petitions (led by W.P.(S) No. 3151 of 2018) filed by the respective writ
petitioners/appellants whereby the decision of the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission (JPSC)/Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC)
treating the candidature of the writ petitioners/appellants under general
category, has not been interfered on the ground that they failed to adhere
to the conditions as stipulated in the respective advertisements and
consequently their writ petitions have been dismissed.
2. Initially, the present batch of Letters Patent Appeals as well as other
Letters Patent Appeals were placed before a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and vide order dated 02.03.2023, the Bench observed that in an
almost similar fact-situation, there were conflicting views of different
Division Benches of this court as in some cases, the ratio laid down in the
case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board & Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 had been
followed, whereas in some other cases, it had been distinguished/not
relied upon. The Bench thereafter referred the said cases to the larger
Bench for determination of the following issues: –
14
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
A. Whether “Ram Kumar Gijroya” must be applied in every
case irrespective of the facts of the case, provided the caste
certificate is produced at the time of verification of the
documents?
B. Whether Clause 9(gha) in the Advertisement No. 2 of 2016
and a similar stipulation in the other advertisements run
contrary to the Constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 16
and 335 of the Constitution of India?
C. Whether providing a condition in the advertisement that the
caste certificate in the proper format should be in possession
of the candidate on the last date for making the application
failing which his/her candidature shall be considered under
unreserved category is an exercise of excessive delegation of
power and/or beyond the powers conferred upon the
Commission?
3. Subsequently, L.P.A. No. 50 of 2020 was de-tagged and L.P.A. No. 118 of
2020 was disposed of by passing a separate order. Thereafter, the
remaining cases (i.e., the present batch of appeals) were placed before
the Full Bench of this Court and the said Bench answered the issues
referred to it vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in the case of Dr.
Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3189 directing that the present
batch of appeals be placed before the appropriate Bench for deciding the
same on merit keeping in view the observation made by the said Bench
on the issues referred to it. Pursuant to the said direction, these appeals
have been placed before this Court.
15
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials
available on record.
5. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the appellant of L.P.A. No. 64 of
2020 namely Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar, submits that the said
appellant was in possession of her caste certificates issued in the
prescribed formats of the State Government as well as the Central
Government from much before the cut-off date of submission of online
application form, however she inadvertently mentioned the particulars of
the caste certificate issued in the prescribed format of the Central
Government while uploading her application.
6. It is further submitted that the said appellant rectified her mistake and
submitted the caste certificate issued in the prescribed format as
mandated under Clause-9(gha) of the Advertisement No. 02/2016 during
the documents verification, however the same was not accepted by the
JPSC and her candidature was treated under “General Category”.
Resultantly, she was not selected for the advertised post despite the fact
that she had scored more marks than the cut-off marks i.e., the marks
obtained by the last selected candidate under the “Scheduled Tribe”
category.
7. It is also submitted that pursuant to publication of the final result, out of
44 vacancies notified for the “Scheduled Tribe” category, only 8
candidates were declared successful and thereby 36 posts remained
vacant. The present appellant is the only left out candidate who has
secured marks more than the cut-off marks and thus, the action of the
Commission in denying appointment to the present appellant is patently
arbitrary and illegal.
16
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
8. It is further submitted that no prejudice will be caused to any other
unsuccessful candidate by providing appointment to the appellant who
was in possession of the caste certificate in the prescribed format of the
State Government prior to the last date of submission of the online
application form.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the said appellant that the
appellant was called for interview by the Commission under “Scheduled
Tribe” category only on confirming her undisputed status under the said
category. Since she had obtained lesser marks than the cut-off marks of
last selected candidate under the “General Category” in written
examination, it cannot be assumed that she was called for interview as a
“general category” candidate. As such, at the time of declaring the final
result, the Commission was wrong in treating the appellant under
“General Category” depriving her of getting the appointment.
10. Mr. Krishna Murari places reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra.)
and submits that once the categorization in a particular category is not
disputed, mere inability to submit the prescribed caste certificate till the
cut-off date should not operate as prejudice to the candidate. Even
otherwise, the delayed submission should not affect the category-wise
selection process as there is no rationale for insisting to produce the
prescribed caste certificate till the cut-off date.
11. Mr. Krishna Murari also puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria and Others
Vs. Dr. C.Mathew and Others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 752 and
submits that possession of a caste certificate in the prescribed format was
17
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
sufficient for claiming benefit of reservation.
12. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
of L.P.A. Nos. 77 of 2020 and 133 of 2020, submits that the JPSC/JSSC
have breached the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
order dated 15.09.2025 by appointing few candidates who were similarly
situated to the said appellants and thus they deserve the similar relief as
granted to the said candidates.
13. It is further submitted that admittedly the appellants belong to the
reserved category but they have been treated under “General Category”
in a most arbitrary manner. The appellants had submitted their caste
certificates in the prescribed format prior to finalization of the process of
recruitment, however the respondents arbitrarily did not take into
consideration the said caste certificates produced by them.
14. It is also submitted that in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay in submission of caste
certificate by a reserved category candidate would not oust his/her
candidature for appointment.
15. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Shresth Gautam,
appearing on behalf of some of the appellants, submits that under similar
situation, some candidates were given relaxation of submitting the caste
certificates at subsequent stage by the JPSC, whereas it acted arbitrarily
in the cases of the appellants by not giving them the same relaxation.
16. In response to the above contentions, Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents- JPSC/JSSC, submits that the
appellants had failed to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the
advertisements fixed for claiming reservation and as such their
18
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
candidatures were considered under “General Category”.
17. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well the
different Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that the
candidates are obliged to strictly follow the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, failing which they would not be able to get the benefit of
reservation.
18. It is also submitted that admittedly in the online application forms, the
appellants had not filled the particulars of the caste certificates obtained
in the prescribed format, rather the same were subsequently produced
either at the time of document verification or after issuance of the show
cause notices.
19. It is further submitted that the Full bench of this Court in the order dated
15.09.2025, has upheld the constitutional validity of Clause 9 (gha) of
Advertisement No. 02 of 2016 and similar stipulations in the other
advertisements, which clearly provide that each candidate who is the
resident of Jharkhand State and belongs to SC/ST/BC-I/BC-II category,
has to fill the particulars of his/her caste certificate issued by the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer in the prescribed format in the
online application form, otherwise they will be treated under “general
category”.
20. Mr. Piprawal contends that the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.)
which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsels for the
appellants, has been distinguished in facts by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in several subsequent judgments and as such the said judgment will not
help the case of the appellants.
21. We have gone through the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.).
19
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
The fact of the said case was that the appellant was not selected for the
advertised post on the ground that he had failed to submit the OBC
certificate issued by the appropriate authority along with the application
form before the last date of submission of the same. Moreover, the
requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before the cut-off date of
the application was introduced by the respondent-Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board only while declaring the result on 15.12.2008.
In the said case, Their Lordships considered the judgment of learned
Single Judge of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Pushpa vs.
Govt., NCT of Delhi & Others reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281
and held that the same was in conformity with the proposition of law laid
down in the case of Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India &
Others reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and Valsamma Paul
(Mrs.) vs. Cochin University & Others reported in (1996) 3 SCC
545. It was further held that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court had
erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge without noticing the binding precedent of Indra Sawhney
(Supra.) and Valsamma Paul (Supra.) wherein after interpretation of
Articles 14, 15, 16 as well as 39-A of the Constitution of India pertaining
to the Directive Principles of the State policy, it was held that the object
of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally/socially
backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public
employment, as the candidates belonging to these categories are unable
to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category on
account of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity.
The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of
20
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
the Constitution and Articles 14, 15, 16 as well as 39-A of the Directive
Principles of the State policy is to achieve the purpose of giving equal
opportunity to all sections of the society.
22. In the case of Karn Singh Yadav Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi
and Others reported in (2024) 2 SCC 716, the judgments of Ram
Kumar Gijroya (Supra.) and Pushpa (supra.) came to be considered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and their Lordships referred the matter to
the Larger Bench of three judges for reconsideration of the issue fell in
the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra.) by observing that the
judgment of Pushpa (supra.) was passed under a peculiar circumstance
where the fact was that the office of the competent authority took
considerable time to make the required OBC certificate available despite
the applicant having filed an application before the concerned Sub-
Divisional Officer for obtaining the same much prior to the date of
issuance of the advertisement, for which the applicant could not be made
to suffer. It was further held that in the course of recruitment process,
many persons, though belonging to the OBC category or SC/ST category,
might not have obtained the required caste certificate before the cut-off
date. Such persons, being law abiding and conscious of the bar contained
in the notification of the cut-off date, might not have applied seeking
employment. In case, the authority starts accepting caste certificates
subsequent to the prescribed cut-off dates whenever a candidate
approaches it, the remaining candidates who had not applied, would
definitely be affected. If the applicants are allowed to submit certificates
in proof of their claim of reservation subsequent to the notified cut-off
date, it would create an administrative chaos.
21
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
23. However, when the said case was placed before the Larger Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, Their Lordships did not delve into the issues
raised in Karn Singh Yadav (supra.) (decided by two Judges Bench)
and disposed of the said case vide judgment rendered in Karn Singh
Yadav vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others reported in (2024)
2 SCC 588 (decided by three Judges Bench) observing that the fact and
situation of the said case was identical to the case of Ram Kumar
Gijroya (supra.).
24. The judgments of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra.) as well as Karn Singh
Yadav (supra.) (two Judges Bench) and Karn Singh Yadav (supra.)
(three Judges Bench) were also considered in the case of Divya Vs.
Union of India & Others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 448. Their
Lordships distinguished the fact of that case with that of Ram Kumar
Gijroya (Supra.) and observed that in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya
(Supra.) there was no rule regarding requirement of submitting the OBC
certificate before the cut-off date, rather the same was introduced by the
selection authority at the time of declaring the result. It was further
observed that in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.), there was
no contention or issue raised that the eligibility enured or crystallized only
on issuance of the certificate and on possession of the certificate before
the prescribed cut-off date. In the said case, Their Lordships went on to
observe that the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.) was also
directly in conflict with the judgment of Three Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma
& Others Vs. Chander Shekhar & Another reported in (1997) 4 SCC
18 and thus the ratio laid down in the judgment of the three judges’
22
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra.) is bound to be
followed.
25. Again, in the case of Sakshi Arha Vs. The Rajasthan High Court and
Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 757 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court distinguished the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.)
from the fact of that case observing as under: –
“38. Significant reliance is placed by the Appellants on
the 2-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram
Kumar Gijroya (supra). A perusal of the decision
rendered by the High Court of Delhi on the factual
matrix therein is evidently distinct. The same, thus,
cannot come to the rescue of the Appellants. In the
instant case, it is not a contention of Appellants that
they are missing a valid proof of attainment of their
particular qualification or right. No candidate before
us has a claim that they, to begin with, already availed
and established their eligibility, or had applied for a
NCL category certificate and issuance of the same is
delayed at the behest of the competent authority. The
ratio, therefore, in the relied judgment would not
apply.”
26. The Full Bench of this Court also decided the issue ‘A’ in the judgment
dated 15.09.2025 by observing that the ratio laid down in the case of
Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) is not applicable in every case irrespective
of the facts. It also cannot be applied if the caste certificate is not
produced on or before the cut-off date as prescribed either by the rules
governing the employment or by the advertisement. In case, rules and
advertisement are silent about the cut-off date, then the eligibility will be
judged on the last date of submission of the application forms.
27. In the aforesaid judgment, one of us (Rajesh Shankar, J) has observed in
concurring part as under: –
“67. It may be construed from the aforesaid judicial
23
2026:JHHC:13599-DBpronouncements that the judgment of Ram Kumar
Gijroya (Supra.) was delivered in the peculiar fact and
circumstance of the said case where the cut-off date
for submitting OBC certificate was not given in the
advertisement, rather the same was introduced by
the respondent-Delhi Sub-ordinate Services Selection
Board only while declaring the result. The judgment
of Pushpa (Supra.) which was strongly relied upon by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya
(Supra.) was also delivered in the circumstance where
the applicant had moved an application for obtaining
OBC certificate much prior to the date of issuance of
the advertisement, however, the office of the
competent authority took considerable time to make
the required OBC certificate available. The judgment
of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.) was factually
distinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment rendered in the cases of Divya (Supra.) and
Sakshi Arya (Supra.).”
28. Now, the question falls for consideration of this Court is whether the facts
and circumstance of the present batch of appeals are similar to the case
of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra.) so as to entitle the appellants for any
relief by this Court in view of the law laid down in the said judgment or
was there any cut-off date fixed in the advertisements in question for
obtaining caste certificates in the prescribed format which the appellants
were required to strictly follow.
29. The present matters relate to altogether six advertisements issued by the
JPSC/JSSC and as such for better appreciation of the cases of the parties,
it seems appropriate to inter alia refer the relevant provisions of the said
advertisements as well as the respective claims of the parties.
30. Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 was issued by the JPSC for appointment
to the post of Dentist (Basic Cadre) and the last date of submission of the
online application forms by the interested candidates was fixed as
24
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
29.02.2016, which was subsequently extended upto 15.03.2016.
31. The relevant clauses for the said advertisement are quoted hereinbelow
for the ready reference in the present case:-
Clause-9 आरक्षण-:
(क).ऑनलाईन,(Online) आवेदन में ननयत प्रनवनि के अधीन इं नित आरक्षण
का दावा नहीं करने पर आरक्षण का लाभ नहीं नमलेिा। ऐसे अभ्यनथिय ं क
अनारनक्षत क नि में शानमल नकया जायेिा ।
(ख) आरक्षण का लाभ केवल झारखण्ड राज्य के स्थायी ननवासी क झारखण्ड राज्य
के सक्षम स्तर के पदानधकारी अथाि त उपायुक्त / अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी स्तर से
ननिित जानत प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर ही दे य ह िा। झारखण्ड राज्य के बाहर के
जानत प्रमाण पत्र धारक अभ्यथी के नलए आरक्षण के लाभ हे तु नकया िया दावा
अनुमान्य नहीं ह िा । केन्द्रीय सरकार के अधीन ननय जन / शैक्षनणक संस्थान ं में
नामां कन के उद्दे श्य से ननिि त नपछडी जानत (OBC) का प्रमाण पत्र भी अमान्य ह िा
एवं आरक्षण का दावा अनु मान्य नहीं ह िा ।
(घ) झारखण्ड राज्य के उम्मीदवार, ज अनुसूनित जानत / अनुसूनित जनजानत /
नपछडा विि -I (BC- I) / नपछडा विि – II ( BC-II) के हैं , क आरक्षण का लाभ प्राप्त
करने के नलए झारखण्ड राज्यान्तिित उपायुक्त / अनुमंडल पदानधकारी स्तर से
क्रमशः कानमिक, प्रशासननक सुधार तथा राजभाषा नवभाि, झारखण्ड सरकार का
ज्ञापां क- 5682, नदनां क- 22.10.2008 एवं ज्ञापां क- 10007, नदनां क- 29.08.2012
द्वारा ननिित ननधाि ररत नवनहत प्रपत्र – I अथवा प्रपत्र – II का नववरण ऑनलाईन
आवेदन पत्र में प्रनवि करें िे। अन्यथा अभ्यथी अनारनक्षत क नि के माने जायेंिे I
ननधाि ररत प्रपत्र आय ि के वेबसाइि – www.jpsc.gov.in पर उपलब्ध है ।
(ड.) आवेदन के प्राप्तप्त की अंनतम नतनथ तक आरक्षण हे तु संलग्न नवनहत प्रपत्र – I
एवं प्रपत्र – ॥ में जानत प्रमाण पत्र, नजसे आय ि द्वारा अन्तवीक्षा के समय प्रमाण पत्र
25
2026:JHHC:13599-DBसत्यापन प्रनक्रया के दौरान मूल रूप में प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करना अननवायि ह िा
अन्यथा अभ्यनथिता रद्द कर दी जायेिी।
(ि) साक्षात्कार के समय ऑनलाईन आवेदन में नदये िये प्रनवनि (Entry) एवं मुनित
आवेदन के साथ सं लग्न सभी प्रमाण पत्र ं की संबंनधत मूल प्रनत प्रस्तुत करना
अननवायि ह िा । अन्यथा अभ्यनथिता रद्द कर दी जायेिी ।
Clause-12 (घ) :-
(iii) उम्र संबंधी प्रवेनशका (मैनिि क) प्रमाण पत्र या इसके समकक्ष (iv) जानत प्रमाण
पत्र (जहााँ लािू ह ) आनद ऑनलाईन आवेदन पत्र में ननधाि ररत कंनडकाओं में अवश्य
प्रनवनि करें िे तथा साक्षात्कार के समय जााँ ि के क्रम में उपर क्त प्रमाण पत्र की
मूल प्रनत प्रस्तुत करना अननवायि ह िा एवं ऑनलाईन आवेदन में दी ियी सूिना
तथा साक्षात्कार के समय दी ियी सूिना में नभन्नता ह ने पर अभ्यनथिता रद्द कर दी
जायेिी तथा इसके नलए आवेदक स्वयं नजम्मे वार ह ि
ं े।
32. The appellants of L.P.A No. 64 of 2020, L.P.A No. 114 of 2020 and L.P.A
No. 117 of 2020 filled up their respective online application forms for the
said advertised post. They appeared in the written examination held on
20.12.2017 and after passing the said examination, they were called for
document verification on 08.03.2018. The interview of the said
examination was conducted on 09.03.2018 and the recommendation for
appointment of the successful candidates was made to the state
government on 17.05.2018. The appellants of the said cases were treated
as “general category” candidates and were declared unsuccessful since
they secured lesser marks than those of the last selected candidates
under the “general category”.
33. For better appreciation of the claims of the appellants, the details of their
26
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
categories, particulars of the caste certificates mentioned by them in the
online application forms as well as the caste certificates submitted by
them at the time of document verification or after issuance of show cause
notices, are given as under:-
Category of Particulars of the Caste Caste certificate(s)
the certificate(s) mentioned by submitted by the
appellant(s) the appellant(s) in the appellant(s) at the time
Online Application Form(s) of document verification
or after issuance of the
show cause notice
L.P.A No. 64 of 2020 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 3151 of 2018
Appellant – S.T Caste Certificate No. Same caste certificate
CST/0316/14/00494 dated mentioned in the
24.11.2014 issued by the application form as also
S.D.O in the format of Caste Certificate No.
central government CST/0316/14/00327
dated 29.09.2014 issued
by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in the prescribed
format
L.P.A No. 114 of 2020 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 3374 of 2018
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate No.
No. 1 – B.C-II CST/1622/16/00107 dated CST/1601/16/00204
02.02.2016 issued by the dated 29.01.2016 issued
Deputy Commissioner, by the C.O. on 30.01.2016
Hazaribagh in the format of and countersigned by the
Central Government SDO, Sadar, Hazaribagh
on 10.03.2016
Appellant Caste Certificate No. 1921 Caste Certificate No.
No. 2 – B.C-II dated 06.11.2015 issued by JHCC/2018/182586
the S.D.O however the same dated 03.03.2018 issued
was not in the prescribed by the SDO in the
format as mentioned in the prescribed format after
Advertisement the last date of
submission of the online
application form.
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate No.
No. 3 – B.C-I JHCC/2015/21810 dated JHCC/2018/15391 dated
31.08.2015 issued by the 01.02.2018 issued by the
B.D.O SDO in the prescribed
format after the last date
of submission of the
online application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. 2500 Caste Certificate No.
No. 4 – B.C-I dated 20.12.2006 issued by JHCC/2018/174854
the S.D.O not in the dated 26.02.2018 issued
Proforma-II as mentioned by the SDO after the last
in the Advertisement date of submission of the
online application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate No.
No. 5 – B.C-II JHCC/2016/56935 dated JHCC/2018/198348
27
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
20.02.2016 which was in dated 05.03.2018 issued
the format of the Central by the SDO in the
Government prescribed format after
the last date of
submission of the online
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate No.
No. 6 – B.C-I 1105/07 dated 01.03.2007 JHCC/2017/1675393
issued by the SDO which dated 09.02.2018 issued
was not in the prescribed by the D.C., Dhanbad in
format as mentioned in the the prescribed format
advertisement after the last date of
submission of the online
application form
L.P.A No. 117 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3931 of 2018
Appellant – SC Caste Certificate No. 399 Same caste certificate as
dated 27.04.2006 issued by well as Caste Certificate
the SDO which was not in No. JHCC/2017/1507069
the prescribed format dated 30.10.2017 issued
as mentioned in the by the SDO after the last
advertisement. date of submission of the
online application form
34. Advertisement No. 6 of 2017 was issued by the JSSC for appointment
to the post of Jharkhand Police Radio Operator and the last date for
submission of online application forms was fixed as 31.08.2017.
Relevant Clauses of the Advertisement: –
Clause – 3:- परीक्षा परीक्षा के नलए आवेदन दे ने के पूवि अभ्यथी यह सु नननित
ह लें नक वे नवज्ञानपत पद की पात्रता के नवषय पर प्रकानशत सभी शतों क पूरा
करते हैं । परीक्षा में बैठने की अनुमनत पूणितः औपबप्तिक ह िी। परीक्षा के नलए
प्रवेश पत्र ननिित ह ना प्रमानणत नहीं करता है नक अभ्यथी नवज्ञानपत पद पर ननयुप्तक्त
के नलए ियन हे तु ननधाि ररत पात्रता पूरी करते हैं क् नं क आय ि परीक्षा के बाद
अपनी सुनवधा के अनुसार नकसी भी समय अभ्यनथिय ं की पात्रता से सम्बप्तित प्रमाण
पत्र ं की जााँ ि करे िा। प्रमाण पत्र जााँ ि के पिात अभ्यथी की पात्रता के नबन्दु पर
अंनतम ननणिय ह सकेिा। नकसी भी समय पात्रता पूरी नहीं करने वाले अभ्यनथि य ं
का आवेदन / अभ्यनथिता रद्द नकया जा सकता है ।
28
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Clause 7 आरक्षण-:
(I) आवेदन में ननयत प्रनवनि के अधीन इं नित आरक्षण का दावा नहीं करने पर
आरक्षण का लाभ नहीं नमलेिा।
(III) आवेदन समनपित करने की अंनतम नतनथ तक झारखण्ड सरकार द्वारा लािू
आरक्षण सम्बिी सभी ननयम प्रभावी ह ि
ं े | आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले झारखण्डके स्थानीय ननवासी उम्मीदवार क ननम्न प्रमाण-पत्र का नववरण ऑन-लाईन
आवेदन पत्र में दे ना अननवायि ह िा एवं आय ि द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र ं की जााँ ि के अवसर
पर समनपित करमा अननवायि ह िा:-
(i) अनुसूनित जानत एवं अनुसूनित जन जानत के नलए जानत प्रमाण पत्र-
नजला / अनुमंडल के उपायुक्त / अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी से नवनहत प्रपत्र
पररनशि – I पर अंनकत प्रपत्र में अथवा प्रज्ञा केन्द्र द्वारा कम्प्यूिर जननत
प्रमाण पत्र ।
(ii) अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-1 ) एवं नपछडा विि अनुसूिी-2 के नलए
जानत प्रमाण पत्र पररनशि – II पर अंनकत प्रपत्र में अथवा प्रज्ञा केन्द्र द्वारा
कम्प्यूिर जननत प्रमाण पत्र ।
(iii) अनुसूनित जानत, अनु सूनित जन जानत, नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी – 1 )
एवं अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी – 2 ) एवं मनहला के आरनक्षत पद ं के
नलए स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र कानमिक, प्रशासननक सुधार तथा राजभाषा
नवभाि के पत्रां क- 9650 नदनां क 02.06.2016 द्वारा ननधाि ररत प्रपत्र
(पररनशि – III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र) में नजला / अनु मंडल के उपायुक्त /
अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी के स्तर से ननिित स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र मान्य
ह िा एवं अननवायि रूप से – प्रमाण पत्र की सं ख्या तथा नतनथ आवेदन में
29
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
अंनकत करना ह िा, नजसे प्रमाण पत्र ं के जााँ ि कायिक्रम में अननवायि रूप
से जााँ ि हे तु उपस्थानपत करना ह िा ।
(iv) आवेदक उपयुिक्त प्रपत्र ं में अनुमंडल पदानधकारी अथवा उपायुक्त से
प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त ही ऑन लाईन आवेदन पत्र भरना
सुनननित करें तथा ऑन लाईन आवेदन प्रपत्र में यथा स्थान अपने जानत
प्रमाण पत्र, स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या एवं ननििम नतनथ दजि
करें । उक्त प्रमाण पत्र ं की मां ि / जााँ ि आय ि आवश्यकतानुसार कभी
भी कर सकता है ।
(v) सक्षम स्तर से नभन्न स्तर एवं नववरनणका के पररनशि – I, पररनशि-II एवं
पररनशि-III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र अथवा प्रज्ञा केन्द्र द्वारा कम्प्यूिर जननत प्रमाण
पत्र से नभन्न प्रपत्र में अथवा अनुमंडल पदानधकारी से न्यून स्तर के
पदानधकारी द्वारा ननिित जानत प्रमाण पत्र / स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र
मान्य नहीं ह िा तथा ऐसे प्रमाण पत्र ं के आधार पर भरे िये आवेदन पत्र
ननयुप्तक्त प्रनक्रया के नकसी भी स्तर पर आरक्षण के लाभ से वंनित कर नदया
जायेिा अथवा उनके आवेदन पत्र रद्द नकये जा सकते हैं , नजसके नलए
संबंनधत आवेदक स्वयं उतरदायी ह ि
ं े।
Clause-8 : ON LINE आवेदन पत्र क भरना एवं Submit करना :-
ऑन-लाईन आवेदन क भरने के नलए नदए िये नदशा ननदे श का अक्षरशः पालन
करें । आवेदन पत्र में दी िई सूिनाओं से पूणि संतुि ह ने के पिात ही आवेदन पत्र
क जमा (Submit) करें । आवेदन पत्र भरने के नलए आय ि के वेबसाइि
www.jssc.in अथवा www.jssc.nic.in पर जाएाँ एं व Online Application for
JPROCE – 2017 पर Click करें तथा आवेदन पत्र भरें । शैक्षनणक य ग्यता एवं
आरक्षण का दावा के संबंध में अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह ले नक आवेदन की नतनथ
30
2026:JHHC:13599-DBतक वे आवश्यक अहर्त्ाि पूणि करते हैं एं व एतत् सं बंधी वां नछत प्रमाण-पत्र उनके
पास उपलब्ध है ।
आवेदक ं क सूनित नकया जाता है नक आवेदन Submit करने के पूवि भरे िये
आवेदन क ठीक से दे ख लें। यनद क ई त्रुनि है त उसे सुधार कर ही
आवेदन Submit करें | एक बार आवेदन Submit करने के पिात् नकसी भी प्रनवनि
में सुधार का क ई भी दावा मान्य नहीं ह िा और भरे िये आवेदन के आधार पर ही
आवेदक की परीक्षा ली जायेिी ।
अतः आवेदक ं क सलाह दी जाती है नक Online आवेदन फामि भरने के पू वि में
आय ि के अनधकृत वेबसाइि से परीक्षा की नववरनणका Download करने के
पिात् ही फामि भरें I वाह्य स्र त से उपलब्ध नववरनणका के आधार पर फामि भरने
में यनद क ई त्रुनि ह ती है त आवेदक स्वयं इसके नलए नजम्मेवार ह ि
ं े।
Clause 14 :- अन्यान्य
(3). आवेदन में अंनकत सूिनाओं एवं प्रनविय ं की पूणि नजम्मेवारी आवेदक की ह िी
तथा नकसी भी प्रकार की िलत जानकारी के नलए आवेदक स्वयं उर्त्रदायी ह ि
ं े।
Relevant Clause of ‘Necessary Information’ issued for the
documents verification :-
2 (घ) जानत प्रमाण एवं आवासीय प्रमाण पत्र परीक्षा के नववरनणका ।, ॥ एवं III मे
वनणित ननधाि ररत प्रपत्र में ही मान्य ह िा। जानत प्रमाण पत्र एवं आवासीय प्रमाण पत्र
नजला के उपायुक्त अथवा अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी के स्तर से ननिित ह ना िानहए।
जानत प्रमाण पत्र एवं आवासीय प्रमाण पत्र नजला के उपायुक्त अथवा अनुमण्डल
पदानधकारी से अन्यून पदानधकारी के स्तर से ननिित प्रमाण पत्र मान्य नहीं ह िा ।
ननधाि ररत प्रपत्र से नभन्न प्रपत्र में जानत प्रमाण पत्र / आवासीय प्रमाण पत्र मान्य नहीं
ह िा ।
35. The Appellants of L.P.A No. 49 of 2020, L.P.A No. 74 of 2020 and L.P.A
31
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
No. 103 of 2020 filled up their respective online application forms for the
said advertised posts. They appeared in the written examination held on
27.11.2017 and after passing in the said examination, they were called
for document verification on 01.02.2018. The final result of the said
examination was published on 10.07.2018 and the recommendation for
appointment of the successful candidates was made to the state
government on 17.05.2018. The appellants were treated under “general
category” and they were not declared successful as they secured lesser
marks than those of the last selected candidates under “general
category”.
36. For better appreciation of the claims of the appellants, the details of their
categories, particulars of the caste certificates mentioned by them in the
online application forms as well as the caste certificates submitted by
them at the time of document verification or after issuance of show cause
notices, are given below:-
Category Caste certificate mentioned Caste certificate submitted
of the by the appellant in the by the appellants at the
appellant Online Application Form time of document
verification or after the
show cause
L.P.A No. 49 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 5558 of 2018
Appellant – Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate No.
B.C-II JHCC/2017/1097987 dated JHCC/2017/1097987
04.08.2017 issued by the issued by the S.D.O Ranchi
SDO, Ranchi issued on 13.10.2017 in the
(in the application form the prescribed format after the
appellant had wrongly last date of submission of
written the date of the online application form.
registration of the After show cause, she
application filed for produced caste certificate
issuance of caste certificate no. RNC/ BRUM/ SARLE/
in place of date of issuance CST/112928/2013 dated
of the same.) 29.10.2013 issued by the
Block Development Officer,
Budhmu and caste
certificate no. RNC/ BRUM/
SARLE/OBC/1971/201332
2026:JHHC:13599-DBdated 01.08.2013 issued by
the SDO, Ranchi in the
format of central
government.
L.P.A No. 74 of 2020 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 3540 of 2018
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate No.
No.1 – JHCC/2017/419190 dated JHCC/2017/573740 dated
E.B.C-I 29.06.2017 issued by the 07.06.2017 issued by the
SDO (however, the correct S.D.O, Koderma in
issue date of the said the format of Central
certificate is 27.04.2017 Government and
which was issued by the Caste certificate No.
C.O.) JHCC/2018/90292 dated
12.03.2018 issued by the
SDO in the prescribed
format after the last date of
submission of the online
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate No.
No. 2 – BC- JHCC/2017/469188 dated JHCC/2018/94741 dated
2 16.05.2017 issued by SDO 02.02.2018 issued by the
SDO in the prescribed
format after the last date of
submission of the online
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate No.
No. 3 – JHCC/2017/689226 dated JHCC/2018/71879 dated
EBC-1 24.06.2017 issued by SDO 27.01.2018 issued by the
(however, the said SDO in the prescribed
certificate was actually format after the last date of
issued by the C.O.) submission of the online
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate No.
No. 4 – SC JHCC/2017/589112 dated JHCC/2018/98006 dated
28.05.2017 issued by SDO 07.02.2018 issued by the
(however, the said SDO in the prescribed
certificate was actually format after the last date of
issued by the C.O.) submission of the online
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate No.
No. 5 – JHCC/2017/70822 dated JHCC/2017/1534148 dated
EBC-1 25.01.2017 issued by SDO 01.11.2017 issued by the
(however, the said certificate D.C. in the prescribed format
was issued by the C.O) after the last date of
submission of the online
application form
L.P.A No. 103 of 2018 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 3535 of 2018
Appellant – JHCC/2017/409618 dated Caste certificate No.
EBC-I 19.05.2017 issued by the JHCC/2018/14094 dated
S.D.O., however the same is 27.01.2018 issued by the
the certificate to be produced SDO in the prescribed format
by the OBC applying for after the last date of
appointment to the posts submission of the online
under the Government of application form
India
33
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
37. Advertisement No. 5 of 2017 was issued by the JSSC for appointment
to the post of Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector and the last date for
submission of the online application form was fixed as 13.08.2017.
Relevant Clauses of the Advertisement: –
Clause – 3:- परीक्षा के नलए आवेदन दे ने के पू वि अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह लें नक वे
नवज्ञानपत पद की पात्रता के नवषय पर प्रकानशत सभी शतों क पूरा करते हैं । परीक्षा में
बैठने की अनुमनत पूणितः औपबप्तिक ह िी। परीक्षा के नलए प्रवेश पत्र ननिित ह ना प्रमानणत
नहीं करता है नक अभ्यथी नवज्ञानपत पद पर ननयुप्तक्त के नलए ियन हे तु ननधाि ररत पात्रता
पूरी करते हैं क् नं क आय ि परीक्षा के बाद अपनी सुनवधा के अनुसार नकसी भी समय
अभ्यनथिय ं की पात्रता से सम्बप्तित प्रमाण पत्र ं की जााँ ि करे िा। प्रमाण पत्र जााँ ि के पिात
अभ्यथी की पात्रता के नबन्दु पर अंनतम ननणिय ह सकेिा। नकसी भी समय पात्रता पूरी नहीं
करने वाले अभ्यनथिय ं का आवेदन/ अभ्यनथिता रद्द नकया जा सकता है |
Clause-7 आरक्षण-:
(I) आवेदन में ननयत प्रनवनि के अधीन इं नित आरक्षण का दावा नहीं करने पर
आरक्षण का लाभ नहीं नमलेिा।
(III) आवेदन समनपित करने की अंनतम नतनथ तक झारखण्ड सरकार द्वारा लािू
आरक्षण सम्बिी सभी ननयम प्रभावी ह ि
ं े | आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले झारखण्डके स्थानीय ननवासी उम्मीदवार क ननम्न प्रमाण-पत्र का नववरण ऑन-लाईन
आवेदन पत्र में दे ना अननवायि ह िा एवं आय ि द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र ं की जााँ ि के अवसर
पर समनपित करना अननवायि ह िाः –
(i) अनुसूनित जानत एवं अनुसूनित जन जानत के नलए जानत प्रमाण पत्र –
नजला / अनु मंडल के उपायुक्त / अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी से नवनहत प्रपत्र
पररनशि – I पर अंनकत प्रपत्र में अथवा प्रज्ञा केंन्द्र द्वारा कम्प्यूिर
34
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
जननत प्रमाण पत्र ।
(ii) अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-1) एवं नपछडा विि अनुसूिी- 2 के नलए
जानत प्रमाण पत्र पररनशि – II पर अंनकत प्रपत्र में अथवा प्रज्ञा केन्द्र द्वारा
कम्प्यूिर जननत प्रमाण पत्र I
(iii) अनारनक्षत विि की मनहला के नलए झारखण्ड का स्थानीय ननवास प्रमाण
पत्र पररनशि – III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र में अथवा प्रज्ञा केन्द्र द्वारा कम्प्यूिर
जननत प्रमाण पत्र ।
(iv) आवेदक उपयुिक्त प्रपत्र ं में अनुमंडल पदानधकारी अथवा उपायुक्त से
प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त ही ऑन लाईन आवेदन पत्र भरना
सुनननित करे तथा ऑन लाईन आवेदन प्रपत्र में यथा स्थान अपने जानत
प्रमाण पत्र, स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या एवं ननििम नतनथ दजि करें ।
उक्त प्रमाण पत्र ं की मां ि/जााँ ि आय ि आवश्यकतानुसार कभी भी कर
सकता है ।
(v) सक्षम स्तर से नभन्न स्तर एवं नववरनणका के पररनशि-I, पररनशि – II एवं
पररनशि – III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र अथवा प्रज्ञा केन्द्र द्वारा कम्प्यूिर जननत –
प्रमाण पत्र से नभन्न प्रपत्र में अथवा अनुमंडल पदानधकारी से न्यून स्तर के
पदानधकारी द्वारा ननिित जानत प्रमाण पत्र / स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र मान्य
नहीं ह िा तथा ऐसे प्रमाण पत्र ं के आधार पर भरे िये आवेदन पत्र
ननयुप्तक्त प्रनक्रया के नकसी भी स्तर पर आरक्षण के लाभ से वंनित कर नदया
जायेिा अथवा उनके आवेदन पत्र रद्द नकए जा सकते हैं , नजसके नलए
संबंनधत आवेदक स्वयं उर्त्रदायी ह ि
ं े। ।
Clause-9:- ON LINE आवेदन पत्र को भरना एवं submit करना – ऑन-लाईन
आवेदन क भरने के नलए नदए िये नदशा ननदे श का अक्षरशः पालन करें । आवे दन
35
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
पत्र में दी िई सूिनाओं से पूणि संतुि ह ने के पिात ही आवेदन पत्र क जमा
(Submit) करें । आवेदन पत्र भरने के नलए आय ि के वेबसाइि www.jssc.in
अथवा www.jssc.nic.in पर जाएाँ एं व Online Application for JCPSICE-2017
पर Click करें तथा आवेदन पत्र भरें ।
शैक्षनणत य ग्यता एवं आरक्षण का दावा के संबंध में अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह ले नक
आवेदन की नतनथ तक वे आवश्यक अहर्त्ाि पूणि करते हैं एं व एतत् संबंधी वां नछत
प्रमाण-पत्र उनके पास उपलब्ध है ।
आवेदक ं क सूनित नकया जाता है नक आवेदन Submit करने के पूवि भरे िये
आवेदन क ठीक से दे ख लें। यनद क ई त्रुनि है त उसे सुधार कर ही आवे दन
Submit करें । एक बार आवेदन Submit करने के पिात् परीक्षाफल क प्रभानवत
करने वाले नकसी भी प्रनवनि में सुधार का क ई भी दावा मान्य नहीं ह िा और भरे
िये आवेदन के आधार पर ही आवेदक की परीक्षा ली जायेिी ।
अतः आवेदक ं क सलाह दी जाती हैं नक Online आवेदन फामि भरने के पू वि में
आय ि के अनधकृत वेबसाइि से परीक्षा की नववरनणका Download करने के
पिात् ही फामि भरें I वाह्य स्र त से उपलब्ध नववरनणका के आधार पर फामि भरने
में यनद क ई त्रुनि ह ती है त आवेदक स्वयं इसके नलए नजम्मेवार ह ि
ं े।
Clause – 15: अन्यान्य:-
3. आवेदन में अंनकत सूिनाओं एवं प्रनविय ं की पूणि नजम्मेवारी आवेदक की ह िी तथा
नकसी भी प्रकार की िलत जानकारी के नलए आवेदक स्वयं उर्त्रदायी ह ि
ं ें।
Relevant Clause of Notice for the documents verification:-
2 (III) (ङ) वही जानत प्रमाण एवं स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र स्वीकायि ह िा
नजसकी संख्या ननििम नतनथ तथा ननििम प्रानधकार की प्रनवनि ऑन लाईन आवे दन
पत्र में की िई है । आवेदन में दजि प्रमाण पत्र से नभन्न जानत का प्रमाण पत्र एवं
स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र स्वीकायि नहीं ह िा। ऑन लाईन आवेदन पत्र में नजस
36
2026:JHHC:13599-DBआरक्षण क नि का दावा नकया िया है उसी आरक्षण क नि का जानत प्रमाण पत्र
मान्य ह िा।
38. The appellants of L.P.A No. 76 of 2020, L.P.A No. 77 of 2020, L.P.A No. 87
of 2020, L.P.A No. 88 of 2020, L.P.A No. 92 of 2020, L.P.A No. 104 of
2020, L.P.A No. 128 of 2020, L.P.A No. 133 of 2020, L.P.A No. 183 of 2020,
L.P.A No. 193 of 2020 and L.P.A No. 266 of 2020 filled up their respective
online application forms for the said advertised posts. They appeared in
the written examination and after clearing the said examination, they
were called for document verification held between 18.05.2018 and
23.05.2018. The final result of the said examination was published on
27.06.2018 and the recommendation was made to the state government
for appointment of the successful candidates on 05.07.2018. The
appellants were treated as “general category” candidates and they were
not declared successful as they secured lesser marks than those of the
last selected candidates under general category.
39. For better appreciation of the claims of the appellants, the details of their
categories, particulars of the caste certificates mentioned by them in the
online application forms as well as the caste certificates submitted by
them at the time of document verification or after issuance of show cause
notices, are given as under:-
Category Caste certificate mentioned by Caste certificate
of the the appellant in the Online submitted by the
appellant Application Form appellants in the
proper format either at
the time of document
verification or after the
show cause
L.P.A No. 76 of 2020 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 3220 of 2018
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate no.
No. 1 – JHHC/2017/56858 dated JHCC/2018/204977
EBC-I 24.01.2017 issued by the D.C, issued on 13.03.201837
2026:JHHC:13599-DBKhunti which was in the format by the SDO in the
of the Central Government. prescribed format after
the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant Caste certificate no. 62 dated Caste certificate issued
No. 2 – 22.10.2016 issued by the S.D.O under Memo No. 100
B.C-II dated 22.10.2016
issued by the S.D.O,
Basia in the Central
Government format.
He also filed the
caste certificate no.
JHCC/2017/1582308
issued on 04.01.2018
by the SDO in the
prescribed format after
the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate
No. 3 - JHCC/2017/27087 dated JHCC/2018/14143
EBC-I 09.01.2017 issued by the S.D.O issued on 01.02.2018
in the format of Central by the SDO in the
Government prescribed format after
the submission of the
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate no.
No. 4 - JHCC/2017/396210 dated JHCC/2018/25065
EBC-I 16.05.2017 issued by the SDO in dated 24.05.2018
the format of Central issued by the SDO in
Government the prescribed format
after the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate no.
No. 5 - CST/1622/15/03310 dated JHCC/2018/238086
BC-II 10.12.2015 issued by the DC in dated 22.03.2018
the format of Central issued by the SDO in
Government the prescribed format
after the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant Caste certificate no. Caste certificate no.
No. 6 - JHCC/2016/392361 dated JHCC/2017/1243861
BC-II 20.08.2016 issued by the dated 22.09.2017
Deputy Commissioner in the issued by the SDO in
format of Central Government the prescribed format
after the last date
of submission of
application form
L.P.A No. 77 of 2020 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 3261 of 2018
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste Certificate no.
No. 1 – JHRC/2016/491413 dated JHCC/2017/1655316
EBC-I 02.11.2016 issued by the SDO issued on 30.12.2017
(issued actually by the C.O. in by the SDO in the
the central government format) prescribed format after38
2026:JHHC:13599-DBthe last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant JHCC/2016/833695 dated caste certificate no.
No. 2 - 04.01.2017 issued by the Circle JHCC/2018/438765
BC-II Officer (wrongly written as SDO issued on 10.05.2018
in the application form) in the by the SDO in the
central government format prescribed format after
the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant JHCC/2017/12453 dated JHCC/2018/320822
No. 3 - 27.02.2017 issued by the Circle issued on 21.04.2018
EBC-I Officer (wrongly written in the by the SDO in
application form as prescribed format after
JSC/2017/12453 dated the last date of
22.02.2017 issued by the SDO) submission of the
in the central government application form
format
Appellant JHCC/2016/637831 dated Caste certificate no.
No. 4 - 01.12.2016 issued by the CO JHCC/2018/442427
EBC-I (wrongly written in the issued on 14.05.2018
application form as SDO) in the in prescribed format by
central government format S.D.O., however after
the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. 874898 Caste certificate no.
No. 5 - dated 02.08.2017 issued by the JHCC/2017/1280800
EBC-I Circle Officer (wrongly written issued on 04.10.2017
as SDO in the application form) in prescribed format
in the central government however after the last
format date of submission of
the application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate no.
No. 6 - JHCC/2017/398288 dated JHCC/2018/378616
BC-II 09.05.2017 issued by the Circle issued on 27.04.2018
Officer (wrongly written as SDO by S.D.O. in prescribed
in the application form) in the format however after
central government format the last date of
submission of the
application form
Appellant JHCC/2016/479579 dated caste certificate no.
No. 7 – 23.10.2016 issued by the CO JHCC/2017/1480139
BC-II (wrongly written as SDO in the issued on 25.11.2017
application form) in the central by the S.D.O. in
government format prescribed format
however after the last
date of submission of
the application form
L.P.A No. 87 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3262 of 2018
Appellant- Caste certificate No. Caste certificate no.
SC JHRC/2017/716496 dated JHCC/2017/1546178
02.06.2017 issued by the SDO dated 10.11.2017
(the said certificate number issued by the SDO,
actually belongs to the Chatra in proper format39
2026:JHHC:13599-DBappellant’s Local Resident however after the last
Certificate) date of submission of
the online application
form.
L.P.A No. 88 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3636 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. caste certificate no.
ST JHCC/2017/854200 dated JHCC/2017/1122887
19.07.2017 issued by the Circle dated 17.08.2017
Officer, Senha (wrongly written issued in the proper
in the application form as SDO) format however the
same was issued after
the last date of
submission of the
application form
L.P.A No. 92 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3216 of 2018
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate no.
No. 1 – SC JHCC/2017/899345 dated JHCC/2017/899345
08.07.2017 issued by SDO issued on 01.12.2017
by S.D.O. in proper
format after the last
date of submission of
the online application
form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. JHCC/2017/1093480
No.2- JHCC/2017/1093480 dated dated 23.04.2018
BC-II 04.08.2017 issued by SDO issued by the SDO,
(However, 04.08.2017 was the Gumla in proper format
date of registration of after the last date of
application for issuance of caste submission of the
certificate) online application form
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Caste certificate no.
No. 3 – JHCC/2017/1064861 issued on JHCC/2017/1064861
EBC-I 13.08.2017 by SDO issued on 15.08.2017
in proper format after
the last date of
submission of the
online application form
L.P.A No. 104 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3428 of 2018
Appellant- JHCC/2017/969195 dated JHCC/2017/1468853
ST 16.07.2017 issued by the SDO dated 28.12.2017
issued by the SDO,
Ranchi in the proper
format after the last
date of submission of
the online application
form.
L.P.A No. 128 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 4249 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. Case certificate no.
EBC-I JHCC/2016/538499 dated JHCC/2018/564578
19.01.2017 issued by the SDO in issued on 30.05.2018
the format of Central by the SDO, Chas in
Government proper format after the
last date of submission
of the application form.
40
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
L.P.A No. 133 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3248 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. caste certificate no.
BC-II JHCC/2017/22737 dated JHCC/2018/431319
11.01.2017 issued by the C.O. dated 09.05.2018
(the said caste certificate issued by the SDO,
number is actually issued under Deoghar in proper
BC-I category) format issued after the
last date of submission
of the application form.
L.P.A No. 183 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3476 of 2018
Appellant Caste Certificate No. caste certificate no.
No. 1 – JHCC/2016/606039 dated JHCC/2018/262013
EBC-I 22.11.2016 issued by the Circle dated 25.04.2018
Officer, Suriya (wrongly written issued by the SDO,
in the application form as SDO) Suriya after the last
date of submission of
the application form.
Appellant Caste Certificate No. caste certificate no.
No. 2 – JHCC/2017/91628 dated JHCC/2018/441616
EBC-1 22.01.2017 (however, the said dated 10.05.2018
date is date of registration and issued by the SDO,
not issue date) Dumri after the last
date of submission of
the application form.
L.P.A No. 193 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 4255 of 2018
EBC-I Caste certificate No. 336 dated Caste certificate no. 15
28.01.2017 dated 28.01.2017
issued by the SDO
Giridih not mentioning
about creamy layer.
After show cause, he
submitted Caste
Certificate No.
JHCC/2016/326805
dated 30.09.2016 of
EBC-I category issued
by the C.O, Giridih
L.P.A No. 266 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 6017 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. 496 dated Caste Certificate No.
BC-II 08.08.2013 issued by the Circle JHCC/2018/296239
Officer (wrongly written in the dated 18.05.2018
application from as SDO) issued by the D.C,
Seraikella-Kharsawan
which was issued after
the last date of
submission of the
online application
form.
40. Advertisement No. 7 of 2017 was issued by the JSSC for appointment
to the post of Jharkhand Police Inspector (Wireless) and the last date for
41
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
submission of Online Application Forms was fixed as 02.09.2017.
Relevant Clauses of the Advertisement:-
Clause-3:-
परीक्षा के नलए आवेदन दे ने के पूवि अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह लें नक वे नवज्ञानपत पद
की पात्रता के नवषय पर प्रकानशत सभी शर्त् ं क पूरा करते हैं । परीक्षा में बैठने की
अनुमनत पूणितः औपबप्तिक ह िी। परीक्षा के नलए प्रवेश पत्र ननिित ह ना प्रमानणत
नहीं करता है नक अभ्यथी नवज्ञानपत पद पर ननयुप्तक्त के नलए ियन हे तु ननधाि ररत
पात्रता पूरी करते हैं क् नं क आय ि परीक्षा के बाद अपनी सुनवधा के अनुसार नकसी
भी समय अभ्यनथिय ं की पात्रता से सम्बप्तित प्रमाण पत्र ं की जााँ ि करे िा। प्रमाण
पत्र जााँ ि के पिात अभ्यथी की पात्रता के नबन्दु पर अंनतम ननणिय ह सकेिा। नकसी
भी समय पात्रता पूरी नहीं करने वाले अभ्यनथिय ं का आवेदन / अभ्यनथिता रद्द नकया
जा सकता है ।
7. आरक्षण :
(I) आवेदन में ननयत प्रनवनि के अधीन इं नित आरक्षण का दावा नहीं करने पर
आरक्षण का लाभ नहीं नमलेिा।
(II) आरक्षण एवं उम्र में छूि का लाभ केवल झारखण्ड राज्य के स्थानीय ननवासी
क ही दे य ह िा।झारखण्ड राज्य के बाहर के सभी उम्मीदवार अनारनक्षत / सामान्य
विि के माने जायेंिे।
(III) झारखण्ड सरकार द्वारा लािू आरक्षण सम्बिी सभी ननयम प्रभावी ह ि
ं े।
आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले झारखण्ड के स्थानीय ननवासी उम्मीदवार क ननम्न
प्रमाण-पत्र आय ि द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र ं की जााँ ि के अवसर पर समनपित करना
अननवायि ह िा:-
(i) जानत प्रमाण पत्र – नजला / अनुमंडल के उपायुक्त / अनुमण्डल
42
2026:JHHC:13599-DBपदानधकारी से नवनहत प्रपत्र [अनुसूनित जानत / अनु सूनित जनजानत के
नलए पररनशि – I पर अंनकत प्रपत्र तथा अत्यंत नपछडा विि
(अनुसूिी – 1) / नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-2) के नलए पररनशि – II पर
अंनकत प्रपत्र ] में अद्यतन ननिित जानत प्रमाण-पत्र |
(ii) अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी – 1) एवं अत्यंत नपछडा विि
(अनुसूिी-2) के नलए नदनां क 31.03.2015 के पिात् नवनहत प्रपत्र
(पररनशि – II पर अंनकत प्रपत्र) में ननिित जानत प्रमाण पत्र मान्य ह िा ।
(iii) अनुसूनित जानत, अनु सूनित जन जानत, नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-1 )
एवं अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी – 2 ) एवं मनहला के आरनक्षत पद ं के
नलए स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र कानमिक, प्रशासननक सुधार तथा
राजभाषा नवभाि के पत्रां क- 9650 नदनां क- 02.06.2016 द्वारा ननधाि ररत
प्रपत्र (पररनशि – III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र ) में नजला / अनु मंडल के उपायुक्त
/ अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी के स्तर से ननिित स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र
मान्य ह िा एवं अननवायि रूप से प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या तथा नतनथ आवेदन
में अं नकत करना ह िा, नजसे प्रमाण पत्र ं के जााँ ि कायिक्रम में अननवायि
रूप से जााँ ि हे तु उपस्थानपत करना ह िा।
स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र का प्रपत्र पररनशि – III के रूप में नववरनणका में सं लग्न
है । आवेदक उपयुिक्त प्रपत्र ं में सक्षम स्तर से प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त ही
ऑन लाईन आवेदन पत्र भरना सुनननित करें तथा ऑन लाईन आवेदन प्रपत्र में यथा
स्थान अपने जानत प्रमाण पत्र, स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या एवं ननिि म
नतनथ दजि करें । उक्त प्रमाण पत्र ं की मां ि / जााँ ि आय ि आवश्यकतानुसार कभी
भी कर सकता है ।
सक्षम स्तर से नभन्न स्तर एवं नववरनणका के पररनशि – I पररनशि – II एवं
43
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
पररनशि – III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र से नभन्न प्रपत्र में ननिि त जानत प्रमाण पत्र / स्थानीय
ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र मान्य नहीं ह िा तथा ऐसे प्रमाण पत्र ं के आधार पर भरे िये
आवेदन पत्र ननयुप्तक्त प्रनक्रया के नकसी भी स्तर पर रद्द नकये जा सकते है , नजसके
नलए संबंनधत आवेदक स्वयं उतरदायी ह िे ।
Clause -8 :- ONLINE आवेदन पत्र क भरना एवं Submit करना:-
ऑन-लाईन आवेदन क भरने के नलए नदए िये नदशा ननदे श का अक्षरशः पालन
करें । आवेदन पत्र में दी िई सूिनाओं से पूणि संतुि ह ने के पिात ही आवेदन पत्र
क जमा (Submit) करें । आवेदन पत्र भरने के नलए आय ि के वेबसाइि
www.jssc.in अथवा www.jssc.nic.in पर जाएाँ एं व Online Application for
JPRSIWCE – 2017 पर Click करें तथा आवेदन पत्र भरें ।
शैक्षनणक य ग्यता एवं आरक्षण का दावा के संबंध में अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह ले
नक आवेदन की नतनथ तक वे आवश्यक अहर्त्ाि पूणि करते हैं एं व एतत् संबंधी वां नछत
प्रमाण-पत्र उनके पास उपलब्ध है ।
आवेदक ं क सूनित नकया जाता है नक आवेदन Submit करने के पूवि भरे
िये आवेदन क ठीक से दे ख लें। यनद क ई त्रुनि है त उसे सुधार कर ही आवे दन
Submit करें । एक बार आवेदन Submit करने के पिात् नकसी भी प्रनवनि में सु धार
का क ई भी दावा मान्य नहीं ह िा और भरे िये आवे दन के आधार पर ही आवे दक
की परीक्षा ली जायेिी।
अतः आवेदक ं क सलाह दी जाती है नक Online आवेदन फामि भरने के
पूवि में आय ि के अनधकृत वेबसाइि से परीक्षा की नववरनणका Download करने
के पिात् ही फामि भरें वाह्य स्त्र त से उपलब्ध नववरनणका के आधार पर फामि भरने
में यनद क ई त्रुनि ह ती है त आवेदक स्वयं इसके नलए नजम्मेवार ह ि
ं े।
Clause-14 अन्यान्यः –
44
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
3. आवेदन में अंनकत सूिनाओं एवं प्रनविय ं की पूणि नजम्मेवारी आवेदक की ह िी
तथा नकसी भी प्रकार की िलत जानकारी के नलए आवेदक स्वयं उर्त्रदायी ह ि
ं े।
41. The appellant of L.P.A No. 105 of 2020 (arising out of the order dated
20.12.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2398 of 2018) filled up his online
application form for the said advertised post. He appeared in the written
examination and after clearing it, he was called for document verification
on 08.01.2018. The final result of the said examination was published on
17.04.2018. The appellant was treated as “general category” candidate
and he was not declared successful as he secured lesser marks than the
last selected candidate under “general category”.
42. For better appreciation of the claim of the appellant, the details of his
category, particulars of the caste certificate mentioned by him in the
online application form as well as the caste certificate submitted by him
at the time of document verification or after issuance of show cause
notices, are given hereunder: –
Category of Caste certificate mentioned by Caste certificate
the the appellant in the Online submitted by the
appellant Application Form appellants at the time of
document verification
or after the show cause
EBC-I Caste Certificate No. 1789444 Same caste certificate
dated 03.10.2016 issued by the particulars of which was
SDO, Ranchi which was in the filled up in the online
format of the Central application form. After
Government. (caste certificate show cause, he filed the
number mentioned in the caste certificate no.
application form was wrong as 3032 dated 02.07.2010
the said number was registration issued by the D.C.
number.) Ranchi in which there
was no mentioning
about the creamy layer.
Another caste
certificate dated
10.02.2018 was filed
which was issued after
the last date of
submission of the
application form.
45
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
43. Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 was issued by JSSC for appointment
to the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in different subjects and the last
date for submission of the online application forms was fixed as
25.04.2017.
Relevant Clauses of the Advertisement:-
Clause – 3:- परीक्षा के नलए आवेदन दे ने के पूवि अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह लें नक
वे नवज्ञानपत पद की पात्रता के नवषय पर प्रकानशत सभी शतों क पूरा करते हैं ।
परीक्षा में बैठने की अनुमनत पूणितः औपबंनधक ह िी। परीक्षा के नलए प्रवेश पत्र
ननिित ह ना प्रमानणत नहीं करता है नक अभ्यथी नवज्ञानपत पद पर ननयुप्तक्त के नलए
ियन हे तु ननधाि ररत पात्रता पूरी करते हैं क् नं क आय ि परीक्षा के बाद यथ नित
संख्या में अभ्यनथिय ं की पात्रता से सम्बप्तित प्रमाण पत्र ं की जााँ ि कर सकता है ।
Clause-8 आरक्षण-:
(i) आवेदन में ननयत प्रनवनि के अधीन इं नित आरक्षण का दावा नहीं करने पर
आरक्षण का लाभ नहीं नमलेिा।
(v) नवज्ञापन – प्रकाशन की नतनथ तक झारखण्ड सरकार द्वारा लािू आरक्षण
सम्बिी सभी ननयम प्रभावी ह ि
ं े। आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले झारखण्ड केस्थानीय ननवासी उम्मीदवार क ननम्न प्रमाण-पत्र आय ि द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र ं की जााँ ि
के अवसर पर समनपित करना अननवायि ह िा:-
(i) जानत प्रमाण पत्र – नजला / अनुमंडल के उपायुक्त / अनुमण्डल
पदानधकारी से नवनहत प्रपत्र (अनुसूनित जानत / अनु सूनित जनजानत के
नलए पररनशि – III अंनकत प्रपत्र तथा अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-1)
के नलए पररनशि – II पर अंनकत प्रपत्र) में अद्यतन ननिित जानत प्रमाण-
पत्र ।
(ii) अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-1) एवं अत्यंत नपछडा विि अनुसूिी-2
46
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
के नलए नवहत प्रपत्र (पररनशि – II पर अंनकत प्रपत्र) में ननिित जानत प्रमाण
पत्र मान्य ह िा ।
(iii) स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र नवनहत प्रपत्र (पररनशि-1 पर अंनकत
प्रपत्र) में ननिित जानत प्रमाण पत्र मान्य ह िा एवं यह प्रमाण पत्र
02.06.2016 के पिात ननिित ह ना िानहए ।
जानत प्रमाण पत्र का प्रपत्र पररनशि के रूप में नववरनणका में सं लग्न है ।
प्रमाण पत्र अननवायितः आवेदन दे ने की नतनथ अथवा उसके पूवि का ह ना िानहए ।
Clause :- 9 – Online आवेदन पत्र क भरना एवं submit करना :-
ऑन-लाईन आवेदन क भरने के नलए नदए िये नदशा ननदे श का अक्षरशः पालन
करें । आवेदन पत्र में दी िई सूिनाओं से पूणि संतुि ह ने के पिात ही आवेदन पत्र
क जमा (Submit) करें । आवेदन पत्र भरने के नलए आय ि के वेबसाइि
www.jssc.in पर जाएाँ एवं Online Application for CGTTCE-2016 पर Click
करें तथा आवेदन पत्र भरें । आवेदक ं क सू नित नकया जाता है नक आवे दन
Submit करने के पूवि भरे िये आवेदन क ठीक से दे ख लें। यनद क ई त्रुनि है त
उसे सुधार कर ही आवेदन Submit करें । एक बार आवेदन Submit करने के
पिात् परीक्षाफल क प्रभानवत करने वाले नकसी भी प्रनवनि में सुधार का क ई भी
दावा मान्य नहीं ह िा और भरे िये आवेदन के आधार पर ही आवेदक की परीक्षा
ली जायेिी ।
(i) ऑनलाईन आवेदन में क्षैनतज आरक्षण तथा अनू सूनित नजल ं की ररप्तक्तय ं के
नवरूद्ध आवेदन करने वाले सभी अभ्यनथिय ं क झारखण्ड का स्थानीय ननवासी
प्रमाण पत्र संख्या तथा नदनां क भरना अननवायितः आवश्यक ह िा। नदनां क
02.06.2016 के पिात ननिित झारखण्ड का स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र ही मान्य
ह िा । नवनहत प्रपत्र पररनशि- III में है ।
47
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
(ii) अनूसूनित नजल ं तथा अन्य नजल ं में आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले अभ्यनथि य ं
क जानत प्रमाण पत्र का प्रमाण पत्र संख्या तथा नदनां क भरना आवश्यक ह िा।
प्रमाण पत्र अननवायितः आवेदन दे ने की नतनथ अथवा उसके पूवि का ह ना िानहए
Clause 16 :- अन्यान्य
2. आवेदन में अंनकत सू िनाओं एवं प्रनविय ं की पूणि नजम्मेवारी आवेदक की ह िी
तथा नकसी भी प्रकार की िलत जानकारी के नलए आवेदन स्वयं उर्त्रदायी ह ि
ं े।
Relevant Clause of ‘Necessary Information’ issued for the
documents verification:-
Note:- अभयनथिय ं द्वारा आवेदन पत्र मे नजस प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या एवं ननिित नतनथ
तथा आरक्षण क िी का दावा नकया िया है उस प्रमाण पत्र / उस क िी से नभन्न
जानत का प्रमाण पत्र तथा उपयुिक्त नवनहत प्रपत्र से नभन्न प्रपत्र ं मे प्रस्तुत नकए िए
प्रमाण पत्र स्वीकार नहीं ह ि
ं े।
44. The appellants of L.P.A No. 115 of 2020 (arising out of the order dated
20.12.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2950 of 2019) filled up their online
application forms for the said advertised posts. They appeared in the
written examination and after passing the said examination, they were
called for document verification on 11.01.2019. The final state wise
result/merit list for the said examination was published in compliance of
the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyajit Kumar Vs.
The State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 18 SCC 284 in which the
appellants were not declared successful as they secured lesser marks
than that of the last selected candidate under “general category”.
45. For better appreciation of the claims of the appellants, the details of their
categories, particulars of the caste certificates mentioned by them in the
online application forms as well as the caste certificates submitted by
48
2026:JHHC:13599-DBthem at the time of document verification or after issuance of show cause
notices, are given as under:-
Category Caste certificate mentioned by Caste certificate
of the the appellant in the Online submitted by the
appellant Application Form appellants at the time
of document
verification
Appellant Caste Certificate No. At the time of
No. – 1 – JHCC/2017/238333 dated document verification
BC-II 18.03.2017 issued by the SDO he had submitted the
under OBC Category in the same caste certificate
format of Central Government and after show cause
he submitted caste
certificate no.
JHCC/2019/10604
dated 08.01.2019
issued by the SDO in
proper format however
the same was issued
after the last date of
submission of the
application form.
Appellant Caste Certificate No. Same caste certificate
No. 2 - JHCC/2017/138601 dated particulars of which
BC-II 06.03.2017 issued by the SDO in was filled up in the
the format of Central online application
Government form. After show cause
notice, she submitted
Caste Certificate No.
JHCC/2019/66663
dated 17.01.2019
issued by the SDO in
prescribed format
however after the last
date of submission of
the application form.
46. Advertisement No. 10 of 2017 was issued by JSSC for appointment
to the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in different subjects and the
last date for submission of online application forms was fixed as
30.12.2017 which was subsequently extended upto 10.01.2018.
Relevant Clauses of the Advertisement:-
Clause – 3:- परीक्षा के नलए आवेदन दे ने के पूवि अभ्यथी यह सुनननित ह लें नक
वे नवज्ञानपत पद की पात्रता के नवषय पर प्रकानशत सभी शतों क पूरा करते हैं ।
परीक्षा में बैठने की अनुमनत पूणितः औपबप्तिक ह िी। परीक्षा के नलए प्रवेश पत्र
49
2026:JHHC:13599-DBननिित ह ना प्रमानणत नही करता है नक अभ्यथी नवज्ञानपत पद पर ननयुप्तक्त के नलए
ियन हे तु ननधाि ररत पात्रता पूरी करते हैं क् नं क आय ि मुख्य परीक्षा के बाद सफल
अभ्यनथिय ं की पात्रता से सम्बप्तित प्रमाण पत्र ं की प्रारप्तिक जााँ ि कर सकता है ।
ननधाि ररत जााँ ि कायिक्रम में अनुपप्तस्थत रहने तथा आवे दन में भरे िये पात्रता सम्बिी
प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं करने पर आरक्षण का लाभ अनुमान्य नहीं ह िा / अभ्यनथि ता
रदद की जा सकती है ।
Clause – 10 आरक्षण-:
(I) आवेदन में ननयत प्रनवनि के अधीन इं नित आरक्षण का दावा नहीं करने पर
आरक्षण का लाभ नहीं नमलेिा। आरक्षण का दावा करने पर यह माना जाएिा नक
अभ्यथी द्वारा दावा नकये िए आरक्षण क नि का सक्षम स्तर से ननिित प्रमाण पत्र
धाररत नकया जाता है ।
(III) नवज्ञापन प्रकाशन की नतनथ तक झारखण्ड सरकार द्वारा लािू आरक्षण सम्बिी
सभी ननयम प्रभावी ह ि
ं े। आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले झारखण्ड के स्थानीयननवासी उम्मीदवार क ननम्न प्रमाण-पत्र आय ि द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र ं के सत्यापन के
अवसर पर समनपित करना अननवायि ह िा:-
(i) जानत प्रमाण पत्र – नजला / अनुमंडल के उपायुक्त / अनुमण्डल
पदानधकारी से नवनहत प्रपत्र (अनुसूनित जानत / अनु सूनित जनजानत के
नलए पररनशि – 1 पर अंनकत प्रपत्र तथा अत्यंत नपछडा विि (अनुसूिी-1
एवं 2 ) के नलए पररनशि – II पर अंनकत प्रपत्र में अद्यतन ननिित जानत
प्रमाण-पत्र |
(ii) अत्यंत नपछडा विि अनुसूिी-1 एवं नपछडा विि अनुसूिी-2 के नलए
नदनां क 31.03.2015 के पिात् नवनहत प्रपत्र (पररनशि – II पर अंनकत
प्रपत्र ) में ननिित जानत प्रमाण पत्र मान्य ह िा।
50
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
(iii) मनहलाओं के आरनक्षत पद ं के नलए स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र
कानमिक, प्रशासननक सुधार तथा राजभाषा नवभाि के पत्रां क 4650
नदनां क 02.06.2016 द्वारा ननधाि ररत प्रपत्र (पररनशि – III पर अंनकत
प्रपत्र ) में अनुमण्डल पदानधकारी के स्तर से ननिि त स्थानीय ननवासी
प्रमाण पत्र मान्य ह िा एवं अननवायि रूप से प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या तथा
नतनथ आवेदन में अंनकत करना ह िा तथा इस प्रमाण पत्र क प्रमाण पत्र ं
के सत्यापन कायिक्रम में अननवायि रूप से सत्यापन हे तु प्रस्तुत करना
ह िा ।
(iv) नदव्ां ि क नि ( दृनिद ष / मूक बनधर / िलन ननः शक्तता, से ररब्रल
पाल्सी) के तहत क्षैनतज आरक्षण का दावा करने वाले अभ्यनथिय ं क 40
प्रनतशत अथवा उससे अनधक नदव्ां िता प्रमाण पत्र की संख्या एवं उसके
ननििम की नतनथ ऑन लाईन आवेदन पत्र में अंनकत करनी ह िी तथा
प्रमाण पत्र ं के जााँ ि के समय उक्त प्रमाण पत्र जााँ ि हे तु आय ि क
उपलब्ध कराना ह िा । नदव्ां ि क नि के अधीन क्षैनतज आरक्षण का लाभ
झारखण्ड राज्य के स्थानीय ननवासी अभ्यनथिय ं क ही दे य है ।
(v) सभी वां नछत प्रमाण पत्र ं की संख्या एवं ननिित नतनथ आवेदन में अंनकत
करना अननवायि है ।
स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण/पत्र जानत प्रमाण पत्र का प्रपत्र पररनशि के रूप में
नववरनणका में सं लग्न है । आवेदक उपयुिक्त प्रपत्र ं में सक्षम स्तर से प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त
करने के उपरान्त ही ऑन लाईन आवेदन पत्र भरना सुनननित करे तथा ऑन लाईन
आवेदन प्रपत्र में यथा स्थान अपने जानत प्रमाण पत्र, स्थानीय ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र की
संख्या एवं ननिि म नतनथ दजि करें । उक्त प्रमाण पत्र ं की मां ि आय ि
आवश्यकतानुसार कभी भी कर सकता है ।
51
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
न ि:- सक्षम स्तर से नभन्न स्तर एवं नववरनणका के पररनशि – I, पररनशि – II एवं
पररनशि – III पर अंनकत प्रपत्र से नभन्न प्रपत्र में ननिि त जानत प्रमाण पत्र / स्थानीय
ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र मान्य नहीं ह िा तथा ऐसे प्रमाण पत्र ं के आधार पर भरे िये
आवेदन पत्र ननयुप्तक्त प्रनक्रया के नकसी भी स्तर पर रद्द नकये जा सकते है , नजसके
नलए संबंनधत आवेदक स्वयं उतरदायी होंगे ।
12. आवेदन पत्र क भेजना:-
ऑनलाईन आवेदन क भरने के नलए नदए िये नदशा ननदे श का अक्षरशः पालन
करें । आवेदन पत्र में प्रनवि सूिनाओं से पूणि संतुि ह ने के पिात् ही आवेदन पत्र
क समनपित (Submit) करें । आवेदन पत्र भरने के नलए आय ि के वेबसाइि
www.jssc.in या www.jssc.nic.in पर जाएाँ एवं Online Application for
PGTTCE – 2017 पर Click करें तथा आवेदन पत्र भरें । आवेदन पत्र भरने के क्रम
में ननयुप्तक्त हे तु पद का नवकल्प अपनी शैक्षनणक य ग्यतानुसार दे ना आवश्यक
ह िा। आवेदक ं क सूनित नकया जाता है नक आवे दन Submit करने के पूवि भरे
िये आवेदन क ठीक से दे ख लें। यनद क ई त्रुनि है त उसे सुधार कर ही आवे दन
Submit करें । एक बार आवेदन Submit करने के पिात् परीक्षाफल क प्रभानवत
करने वाली नकसी भी प्रनवनि यथा जन्म नतनथ, जानत, ननः शक्तता प्रमाण पत्र, स्थानीय
ननवासी प्रमाण पत्र, ियननत नवषय इत्यानद में सुधार का क ई भी दावा मान्य नहीं
ह िा और भरे िये आवेदन के आधार पर ही आवेदक के सन्दभि में परीक्षा प्रनक्रया
पूरी ह िी। ऑनलाईन आवेदन में अभ्यनथिय ं के द्वारा नजन प्रमाण पत्र ं की सं ख्या
एवं नतनथ का उल्लेख नकया जाएिा उन प्रमाण पत्र ं की मूल प्रनत सत्यापन कायिक्रम
में अननवायि रूप से सत्यापन हे तु प्रस्तुत करना ह िा अन्यथा आरक्षण का लाभ दे य
नहीं ह िा / अभ्यनथिता रद्द समझी जाएिी ।
52
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Clause 22 :- अन्यान्य
(2). आवेदन में अंककत सूचनाओ एवं प्रनवनियों की पूर्ण किम्मेवारी आवेदक की होगी
तथा ककसी भी प्रकार की गलत िानकारी के कलए आवेदक स्वयं उत्तरदायी होंगे।
47. The appellants of L.P.A No. 125 of 2020, L.P.A No. 126 of 2020 and L.P.A
No. 127 of 2020 filled up their respective online application forms for the
said advertised post. They appeared in the written examination and after
passing the said examination, they were called for document verification
on 12.07.2018. The appellants were treated under “general category” and
since they scored lesser marks than that of the last selected candidate of
“general category”, they were declared unsuccessful. The selection
process of the said advertisement has already been completed.
48. For better appreciation of the claims of the appellants, the details of their
categories, particulars of the caste certificates mentioned by them in the
online application forms as well as the caste certificates submitted by
them at the time of document verification or after issuance of show cause
notices, are given below:-
Category Caste certificate mentioned by Caste certificate
of the the appellant in the Online submitted by the
appellant Application Form appellants at the time
of document
verification or after
show cause
L.P.A No. 125 of 2020 arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 5514 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. Submitted the same
BC-II JHCC/2017/1706685 dated caste certificate
06.01.2018 issued by the SDO mentioned in the
under OBC Category in the online application form
format of Central Government and after show cause
she submitted caste
certificate no.
JHCC/2018/894173
dated 13.07.2018
issued by the SDO in
53
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
proper format after the
last date of
application.
L.P.A No. 126 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 5903 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. Submitted the same
BC-II JHCC/2016/392355 dated caste certificate
20.08.2016 issued by the DC mentioned in the
under OBC Category in the online application form
format of Central Government and after show cause
she submitted caste
certificate no. JHCC/
2018/834109 dated
10.07.2018 issued by
the SDO in proper
format, however the
same was issued after
the last date of
submission of the
application form.
L.P.A No. 127 of 2020 which is arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019
passed in W.P.(S) No. 5896 of 2018
Appellant- Caste Certificate No. At the time of
BC-II JHCC/2017/06330 dated document verification
10.01.2017 issued by the SDO she submitted the
under OBC Category in the same caste certificate
format of Central Government and after show cause,
she submitted the
caste certificate no.
JHCC/2018/834749
dated 07.07.2018
issued by the SDO in
proper format,
however the same was
issued after the last
date of submission of
the application form.
49. On perusal of the sub-clauses of clauses-9 as mentioned in the
Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 referred hereinabove, it emerges as follows:
(i) At the time of filling up the online application
form, a candidate belonging to reserved category
(SC/ST.BC-I/BC-II) must have possessed the caste
certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-
Divisional Officer in the prescribed Form-I or Form-II as
published by the Department of Personnel, Administrative
54
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand vide
Memo No. 5682 dated 22.10.2008 and Memo No. 10007
dated 29.08.2012.
(ii) The particulars of the said caste certificate must
have been filled up by the candidate claiming reservation
under the aforesaid categories in the online application
form at the specified column, failing which his/her
candidature was to be treated under “general category”.
(iii) The required caste certificate was to be
produced in original at the time of document verification,
failing which the candidature of such candidate was to be
cancelled.
(iv) It was also mentioned that the candidature of a
candidate claiming reservation under the aforesaid
categories would be cancelled in case any difference was
found between the particulars of the caste certificate
entered in the online application form and the original
caste certificate produced at the time of
interview/document verification.
50. Thus, aforesaid clauses, in unequivocal terms, were communicated to all
the candidates belonging to reserved category mandating that they must
possess valid caste certificates issued by the competent authority in the
format prescribed in the said advertisement and that the particulars of
the valid caste certificate had to be mandatorily filled up in the online
application forms. At the time of interview/document verification, the
original caste certificate, the particulars of which were mentioned in the
55
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
online application, was to be produced before the authority. It was clearly
stipulated that if any of the candidates failed to comply the said
requirement, his/her candidature would be liable to be cancelled. The
similar stipulations were also made in all other advertisements in
question. On perusal of the said conditions made in the advertisements,
it would be evident that the compliance of the said terms and conditions
was not made optional but mandatory for all the candidates claiming
reservation under their respective categories.
51. The constitutional validity of Clause 9 (gha) of the Advertisement No. 2
of 2016 and similar stipulations in other advertisements came to be
examined by the Full Bench of this Court and in the order dated
15.09.2025, the issue no. ‘B’ was decided observing as under: –
“81. Thus, Clause 9(gha) of the Advertisement No.2 of
2016 and a similar stipulation in the other
advertisements cannot be said to be against the
constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 16 and 335,
rather it has been incorporated in the advertisement
for smooth conduction of the examination process.
There is a well-known legal maxim ignorantia juris
non excusat which literally means that ignorance of
law is of no excuse. It is the duty of an aspirant for
public employment to read and note the terms of
advertisement and if he/she finds any of the terms
ambiguous, a clarification may be sought. If the
aspirant does not make any such effort and takes a
calculated chance by appearing in the examination, it
is not open for him/her to challenge any of the terms
and conditions of the Advertisement after
participating in the same.”
52. In the present batch of appeals, none of the appellants have claimed that
they had strictly complied with the conditions mentioned in the
advertisements for claiming reservation and they had filled up the
56
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
particulars of valid caste certificates issued to them by the Deputy
Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer in the prescribed format, rather from
the facts of the cases, it is evident that in the online application forms,
some of the appellants had entered the particulars of the caste certificates
issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the format of Central Government
or some had entered the particulars of the caste certificates issued by the
Circle Officer and wrongly filled up the online application forms
mentioning that the same were issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Moreover, some of the appellants had filled up the registration date of
their forms applied for getting the caste certificates in the column- “caste
certificate date of issue” as specified in the ‘Personal Details’ part of the
application forms. Some candidates had even entered the wrong caste
certificate number or wrong date of issue in the specified columns of the
online application forms. In fact, the appellants had produced the caste
certificates in the prescribed format either at the time of document
verification or after issuance of show cause notices that too obtained after
the last date of submission of the application forms.
53. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present batch of appeals are not
similar to the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra.), rather the cut-off
date for obtaining the caste certificate in the prescribed format was fixed
in the advertisements in question and the same was required to be
mandatorily followed by the appellants.
54. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-JPSC/JSSC, has placed reliance on few judgments rendered
by different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and we have also perused
those judgments.
57
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
55. In the case of Dr. Sweta Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Others (L.P.A No. 91 of 2020), the appellant was treated under the
“general category” on the ground that in the online application form, she
had filled up the details of the caste certificate issued in central format
whereas at the time of scrutiny, she had submitted different caste
certificate. The writ petition filed by the said appellant was dismissed and
the Division Bench of this Court also dismissed the appeal.
56. In the case of Pawan Oraon Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others
(L.P.A No. 530 of 2024), the Division Bench of this Court had an
occasion to deal with a case where the appellant had submitted the online
application form by filling up the particulars of the caste certificate issued
in the central format. He was allowed to appear in the preliminary as well
as mains examinations, however at the time of declaration of final result,
he was treated as “general category” candidate and his name did not find
place among the successful candidates. The writ petition filed by the said
appellant was dismissed. In appeal, the Division Bench of this Court held
that the condition stipulated in Clauses 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c)(i) of the
concerned advertisement was to be mandatorily followed by submitting
the caste certificate in due format as contained in the advertisement itself,
failing which no benefit of reservation was to be given, rather the
candidature was required to be considered under the unreserved
category. In the said case, the claim of the appellant was that since his
candidature was accepted at the time of participating in the preliminary
and the mains examinations, his candidature, at the time of
interview/during the document verification, should not have been
rejected. The said claim was also not accepted by the learned Division
58
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Bench by observing that in view of the specific condition stipulated in the
advertisement under clause 7(b) wherein it was provided that the
document verification (including the caste certificate) was to be made at
the time of the interview and since at the time of scrutiny of the
documents, the caste certificate of the appellant was not found in terms
of the said conditions stipulated in the advertisement, his candidature
was rejected. .
57. In the case of Sher Mohammad Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Others (L.P.A No. 183 of 2024) also, the candidature of the appellant
was rejected on the ground that he had submitted the caste certificate in
the central format. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed
by holding inter alia that the caste certificate produced by him at the time
of filling up the online application form of the mains examination could
not be said to be sufficient compliance of production of the required caste
certificate. In appeal before the Division Bench, the appellant raised the
issue that his candidature ought not to have been rejected after allowing
him to participate in the preliminary and mains examinations. The
contention of the appellant was rejected by the Division Bench observing
that if the format of the caste certificate itself was contrary to the
condition stipulated in the advertisement, then no right can be said to
have accrued in favour of the writ petitioner. It was further observed that
if the Commission noticed at the time of scrutiny of the documents that
the application form of the candidate was not in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the advertisement, then the Commission was
right in rejecting his candidature and accordingly it was not available for
such candidate to take the ground that since he had been allowed to
59
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
participate in the process of selection, rejection of his candidature was
unjustified. Moreover, had his candidature been not rejected, the action
of the Commission would have been unjustified as in that situation, the
condition stipulated in the advertisement would have been flouted.
58. In the case of Prem Chand Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Others (L.P.A No. 469 of 2015), the appellant had submitted the
residential certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Latehar which was not
in accordance with the specific condition stipulated in the advertisement
that the residential certificate to be given along with the application form,
must have been issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional
Officer and the cut-off date to submit the filled up application form was
fixed as 09.03.2012. Subsequently when he realized the said mistake, he
submitted the correct residential certificate at the time of interview.
However, his result was not declared by the JPSC. Thereafter, he preferred
writ petition which was dismissed. The learned Division Bench also
dismissed the appeal observing that there could not be two types of cut-
off date – one for “General category” candidates and another for
“Scheduled Tribe” category candidates, so that the candidates belonging
to “Scheduled Tribe” category could produce certificate at any point of
time. The reserved category candidates are given some priority which is
in the form of leniency in passing standard or in the age relaxation etc.,
but, that does not mean that procedural leniency should also be given to
such candidates. Procedural leniency can be given only by the
respondents and not by the Court, otherwise, even age and cut-off marks
relaxation may be granted by the Court, but it is not permissible in the
eyes of law. Whatever leniency is to be given, or relaxation is to be given,
60
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
or whatever condition is to be waived for the reserved category
candidates, all can be done as a policy decision by the respondents and
not by the Court, much less, while exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
59. The Bench further held that the Court cannot be more charitable than the
law, nor the Court can be more lenient or generous beyond the policy of
the respondents. Too much leniency will lead to a chaotic situation. A
candidate cannot be allowed to submit the certificates as per
convenience. If there is a prescribed cut-off date, everyone is bound by
such cut-off date so that process of selection can be started, examination
be conducted and result be declared. If the courts keep on changing the
cut-off date, perhaps there cannot be any finality of the examination
process. This is not permissible in the eyes of law. Every candidate is
bound to submit correct application with all necessary documents on or
before the prescribed cut-off date, so that process of selection can be
over, examination can be conducted in time and the result can be
declared. The Court can alter neither the cut-off date prescribed by the
government nor the condition of the advertisement.
60. The said judgment was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 14.01.2020 passed in S.L.P (C) No. 33684 of 2018 and
therefore the observation made by the learned Division Bench has
attained finality.
61. Thus, the co-ordinate Benches of this Court have also consistently not
allowed any relief to the candidates who have deviated from the cut-off
date fixed by the authorities for submitting the requisite caste certificates.
62. Mr. Krishna Murari has also relied upon the judgment of the Division
61
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2018
(4) JBCJ 650 (HC). In the said case, there was neither any prescribed
format for domicile certificates in the appendix to the prospectus, nor any
cut-off date was fixed by which such domicile certificates were to be
issued. The Bench allowed the relief to the candidates by applying the
ratio of the judgment laid down in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya
(supra.). The said judgment was rendered keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstance of that case and thus the same would be of no
help to the case of the appellants. Moreover, the said judgment has
already been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the order dated
15.09.2025 while answering the issues referred to it. Hence, the
appellants cannot be allowed to reopen the issue already decided by the
Full Bench.
63. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra.), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that if applications are invited prescribing a particular date
as the last date for filing the same, the eligibility of the candidates shall
have to be judged with reference to that date alone. It has further been
held that a person, who acquires the required qualification subsequent to
prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or
notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation who cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this
proposition is that if it was known that the persons who obtained the
qualification after the prescribed date, but before the date of interview
would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed
62
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed
qualification by the cut-off date, they could not be treated on a
preferential basis.
64. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others
reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the selection process
has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection
procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an
advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. 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. In
absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the
advertisement, however, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be
given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those
candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an
equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in
advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate
of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
65. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. G. Hemalathaa
and Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430, the fact was that the
respondent had violated Instruction 22(1)(II) of the Instructions issued
by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission which prohibited candidates
63
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
from using pencil for any purpose. Before the High Court, the respondent
contended that it might have been done inadvertently and due to anxiety.
She pleaded for leniency and prayed that a direction might be given to
the said Commission to declare her as having been successful in the main
examination. The High Court accepted the submission of the respondent
observing that she should not have been disqualified for a mistake
committed unwittingly and inadvertently since she did not gain any
advantage from such marking. The matter having travelled to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, Their Lordships observed that the instructions issued by
the Commission were mandatory having the force of law and those had
to be strictly complied with. It was further observed that strict adherence
to the terms and conditions of the Instructions was of paramount
importance and the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution should not have modified/relaxed the Instructions issued
by the Commission.
66. In the case of Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
decided together with State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Kiran
Prajapati reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125, the appellant- Mohit
Kumar and the respondent of the another case namely Kiran Prajapati
had submitted their OBC (Non Creamy Layer) caste certificates in the
formats prescribed for appointments to the central government services
and not the one prescribed for the state government services, as
mandated by Clause 5.4 of the advertisement. Their Lordships in the said
case have held that irrespective of whether an aspirant for public
employment belongs to a particular community like SC/ST/OBC, the
status claimed by him for being accorded the benefit of reservation is per
64
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
se not decisive. Such status has to be certified by the competent authority
upon following due process and identification that the aspirant is what he
claims to be. It has further been held that once a process of recruitment
is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment. There
cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants. Non-
compliance with the terms of the advertisement/notification is bound to
trigger adverse consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status
by the selecting body/appointing authority, should he choose not to
adhere to the same. Having regard thereto, the selecting body/appointing
authority would be justified in not entertaining the application of an
aspirant as a member of the community for whom reservations are
permissible.
67. It has further been held in the said judgment that once an advertisement
is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is the
responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and
understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the
terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the
advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort ought to be
first made to obtain clarity for understanding the requirements accurately.
If no such scope is available, nothing prevents the aspirant from seeking
clarity by making a representation. Should such clarity be not provided,
the aspirant may participate in the process without prejudice to his rights
and may question the term even after he is not selected. However, if the
aspirant does not make any such effort and takes a calculated chance of
selection based on his own understanding of the disputed term in the
advertisement and later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not
65
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
be open to him to challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed
term is capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts
should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to
accept the recruiting authority’s understanding of the said term. This is
for the simple reason that the recruiting authority is the best judge of
what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the recruiting
authority that would matter most in cases brought up before the courts;
hence, after commencement of the process wherein aspirants have
participated without raising any demur as to what a particular term
means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in
favour of the recruiting authority.
68. In the case of Sakshi Arya (supra), the fact was that an advertisement
inviting applications for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre was
published which was silent on the aspect of the last date of issuance of
the concerned certificates for each reserved category. The Appellants in
all the appeals belonged to different reserved categories and they had
successfully cleared their preliminary examination, followed by mains
examination, as per the requirements of marks in their respective
categories. However, as none of those candidates had their certificates
issued as per the date specified in the subsequent notice, their names
were not included in the list of the candidates called for interview. In the
said case, Their Lordships by relying on the judgments rendered in the
cases of Bhupinderpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and
Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 562, Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) Vs.
University of Rajasthan and Others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC
168, Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Others reported in
66
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
(2007) 4 SCC 54 and Divya (Supra.), have held that the claim made
by a candidate while filling his or her application as per the concerned
advertisement are to hold good as on the date of his or her application
or as per the last date of submission of application prescribed in the
concerned advertisement.
69. Thus, it is no more res integra that the eligibility of a candidate is required
to be judged at the time of filling up of the application form. The
candidates are duty bound to carefully go through the terms and
conditions of the advertisement and strictly comply the same. If any
format for obtaining caste certificate and cut-off date for its submission
is prescribed in the concerned rule or any advertisement, the same is to
be strictly complied with by the candidates. In case of any confusion, the
candidates may seek clarification from the authority. Any deviation from
the said terms and conditions entitles the authorities to reject the
candidature of the candidates.
70. Even if there is no cut-off date fixed by the rules or advertisement for
producing the relevant certificates, a candidate is required to have an
eligibility criterion on the last date of submission of application form. The
reason behind it is that in case of uncertainty of cut-off date, the
candidates who apply for the advertised post will be unable to ascertain
whether they are qualified for the post applied for or not. In such a
situation, a candidate who does not possess the requisite qualifications in
presenti and is likely to acquire them on an uncertain future date, may
also apply for the advertised post and thus the number of applications
will enormously increase.
71. No relaxation can be granted to a candidate if the same is not provided
67
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
in the rules or advertisement. The candidates cannot claim any relaxation
on the ground of mistake or otherwise. If relaxation is granted to one
candidate, the others may seek similar relief from the court, which would
delay the completion of the appointment process. Moreover, granting
such relaxation would cause prejudice to those candidates who did not
apply due to their ineligibility.
72. A candidate cannot claim reservation mere by the reason that he/she
belongs to the reserved category. For claiming reservation, the candidate
is bound to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed format within
the cut-off date.
73. Mr. Krishna Murari has tried to distinguish the case of the appellant –
Dr. Nutan Indwar from the other appellants and has submitted that the
said appellant was in possession of the requisite certificate at the time of
submitting the online application form. Learned counsel has given much
emphasis to the argument that the only condition for claiming benefit of
reservation was the possession of the caste certificate issued by the
Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer in the prescribed format. It
has further been contended that even if the particulars of such caste
certificate were not mentioned in the online application form due to
mistake or omission, the same would not make any difference to the case
of the said appellant. What actually Mr. Krishna Murari wants to convey is
that mere possession of the caste certificate in the prescribed format was
sufficient to claim the benefit of reservation irrespective of the fact that
the details/particulars of such certificate were not mentioned in the
application.
74. In support of the said contention, Mr. Krishna Murari has relied on the
68
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
judgment rendered in the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra). In the
said case, for admission to the Post Graduate degree course, there was a
provision that a diploma holder would be given extra 10 marks subject to
the condition that the certificate of diploma must be obtained at least on
or before the last date fixed for submitting the application and not later.
In the said case, Their Lordships held as under: –
“20. … To confuse between a fact and its proof is
blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of
acquiring the additional qualification before the last
date for application makes sense. But if it is
unshakeably shown that the qualification has been
acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here,
to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though
indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before
the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the
prospectus, but still above-board, is to make
procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and
form not as subservient to substance but as superior
to the essence.”
75. Their Lordships finally held in the aforesaid case that three candidates
who were eventually admitted by the selection committee could not be
ousted merely for the reason that the certificate of diploma had not been
produced together with the application for admission. The government
was not at fault for issuing a directive to the selection committee that the
application forms of the students of the diploma course could be
considered subject to the condition that they would produce the diploma
certificates before finalising the selection to post-graduate courses.
76. The judgment of Charles K. Skaria (Supra.) was also referred in the
case of Divya (Supra.) and Their Lordships distinguished the fact of the
said case from those of Charles K. Skaria (supra) by observing as
69
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
under: –
“47. In Charles K. Skaria, most candidates possessed
the eligibility viz. the diploma. Only the proof in the
form of certificate was awaited. The authorities had
also accepted them as eligible, expressly informing
the Selection Committee that for eligible candidates
even if proof came later and before the final selection,
it should be considered as valid. This was also equally
the situation in [Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE,
(2005) 9 SCC 779], [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of
U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242] and [Dheerender Singh
Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276] where the
factual position about the eligibility was not in
dispute. Those cases and the cases of that ilk cannot
support the petitioners in this case for the purpose of
claiming eligibility in CSE-2022 as an EWS candidate.”
77. In the present case also, the facts and circumstances are different from
those of Charles K. Skaria (Supra.) particularly because in this case,
the recruiting authorities had made the condition of mentioning the
particulars of valid caste certificate in the online application form as
mandatory not directory.
78. In Divya (Supra.), Their Lordships while also relying upon the judgment
of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gaurav Singh & Others
reported in (2024) 2 SCC 605, have held as under: –
“65. In Gaurav Singh case, this Court has held as
under : (SCC OnLine SC paras 19-21 & 23)
“19. A technical irregularity in a certificate
issued by the competent authority in
respect of the correct financial year
cannot be equated with an Income and
Asset Certificate in respect of a different
financial year when the Income and
Assets for the particular financial year
prior to the year of submission of the
application, goes to the root of eligibility70
2026:JHHC:13599-DBof a candidate to qualify in the EWS
category.
20. The Respondent-Writ Petitioners were
well aware that they had to furnish
Income and Asset Certificates issued by
the Competent Authority for the financial
year prior to the year of application. If the
applications were made pursuant to a
notification published on 24-4-2019 with
20-5-2019 notified as the last date for
submission of the applications, the
financial year prior to the year of
submission of application could not
possibly be Financial Year 2019-2020, to
which the Certificates related. The
observation in the impugned judgment
and order [Gaurav Singh v. Union of India,
2020 SCC OnLine Del 2711] of the High
Court of the expediency of specifying the
financial year in the notification for
recruitment is in the nature of an advisory,
which may be kept in mind when
recruitment notifications are issued by the
Appellant in future. The Respondent Writ
Petitioners 2 and 4, in whose Income and
Asset Certificates were not in order, did
not have any legal right to be considered
EWS candidates.
21. The Respondent-Writ Petitioners were
required to submit Certificates for the
relevant financial year. The negligence of
the Respondent-Writ Petitioners in not
checking if the Certificate related to the
correct financial year, cannot be lightly
brushed aside as inadvertent lapses of the
certifying authority. A candidate applying
for a post pursuant to an advertisement,
cannot afford to be negligent. Documents
required to be submitted have to be
carefully checked by the candidate
concerned before submission. An71
2026:JHHC:13599-DBappointing authority proceeds on the
basis of what is stated in a certificate.
When a certificate pertains to a different
financial year, the same is liable to be
outright rejected. No candidate can, in
such case, claim any legal right to
reconsideration of his/her candidature by
submission of a fresh certificate and/or
rectified certificate.
***
23. In the case of Respondent-Writ
Petitioner 3, the Income and Asset
Certificate, which had initially been
questioned as having been issued by an
authority not competent, was later
accepted as it was found that the
authority issuing the certificate was in
fact competent. The certificate of the
Respondent-Writ Petitioner 1 was also
accepted as there was no discrepancy in
either the date of issuance or the year. It
was just that the seal had been stamped
without the full name of the officer
concerned and that was accepted as an
error not attributable to the candidate
concerned.””
79. In the case of Divya (Supra.), the claim of one of the appellants was
that he was in possession of the requisite Income & Asset Certificate
(IA &C) dated 11.10.2021 in the prescribed format but by mistake he
uploaded the certificate in online Detailed Application Form-I on the same
day for financial year 2021-22 instead of financial year 2020-21. Their
Lordships did not accept the said claim of the appellants and observed at
para 86 as under: –
“86. The rules clearly mandate and as has been held
in [UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605], any
mistake/omission/negligence cannot be condoned so72
2026:JHHC:13599-DBas to extend the deadline for production of the
documents. Neither the Office Memorandum nor the
rules in question can be construed as directory. They
prescribe clearly the eligibility criterion and the date
before which the certificate should be possessed and
the date before which the certificate should be
submitted. They also prescribe the consequence for
the omission. As the old ditty goes for a want of a
horseshoe nail, kingdoms have been lost. Here we are
dealing with crucial documents determining
eligibility. The petitioners who did not possess the
valid documentation determining their eligibility,
before the prescribed cut-off date, cannot complain,
if their claim for categorisation as EWS was rejected.”
80. We are not convinced with the argument of Mr. Krishna Murari particularly
for the reason that the relevant clauses of the Advertisement No. 02 of
2016 referred hereinabove, in unequivocal term mandate that not only
the possession of the valid caste certificate was necessary for claiming
the benefit of reservation by the concerned candidates, but also
mentioning of the particulars of the same in the online application form
was essential to avail the benefit of reservation. Moreover, compliance of
the said conditions was mandatory in nature since as per Clause 9(ि), all
the candidates were required to submit the original certificates of the
documents, particulars of which were mentioned in the online application
form otherwise his/her candidature was liable to be cancelled. Admittedly,
the appellant-Dr. Nutan Indwar had not fulfilled these twin conditions
mentioned in the advertisement for claiming reservation and as such no
relief can be granted to her.
81. Next argument on behalf of the learned counsels for the appellants is that
once the caste certificates submitted by the appellants were duly
accepted by the authorities by allowing them to appear in the respective
73
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
examinations, the authorities cannot be permitted to declare them
unsuccessful by treating under “general category”.
82. We do not find any substance in the said argument of the learned counsel
for the appellants in view of clear stipulation made in the advertisements
that the candidatures of the candidates would be cancelled if the
documents submitted by them were found invalid. Mere acceptance of
the application form and permitting the appellants to appear in the
examination would not give any right to them to be treated under
reserved category. If the particulars given by the candidates are
subsequently found false and not in conformity with the relevant rules or
advertisements, then their candidatures are liable to be cancelled even
after the appointment. Any appointment taken under false/incorrect
information are treated as void. Admittedly, the appellants did not fill up
the particulars of the requisite caste certificates in the online application
forms and therefore as per the terms and conditions of the
advertisements, their candidatures were liable to be cancelled, however
the authorities being liberal with the appellants did not cancel their
candidatures, rather they were treated under “general category” and
since they secured lesser marks than those of the last selected candidates
of “general category”, they were declared unsuccessful. Thus, no
illegality/arbitrariness is found in the action of the respondents.
83. The learned counsels for the appellants have also submitted that some
similarly situated persons have been given appointments and thus the
action of the authorities in treating the appellants differently from other
similarly situated persons is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
84. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsels for the
74
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
appellants, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P and Others Vs.
Raj Kumar Sharma and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the selectees cannot
claim appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of the candidate’s
name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of
the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot
claim that they have suffered hostile discrimination. It has further been
held that even if in some cases, appointments have been made wrongly
or by mistake, that does not confer any right on another person. Article
14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the
State has committed mistake or illegality, it cannot be forced to
perpetuate the same.
85. In the case of Soni Kumari Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Others
(Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 9234 of 2023 in Contempt
Petition (Civil) No. 612 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022),
the appellants were claiming appointment on the ground that 400
teachers who did not possess post-graduation degrees, had already been
appointed. Their Lordships rejected the said contention of the appellants
by observing as under: –
“7. We cannot accept the submissions made by
Mr. Jayant Sud, learned senior counsel for two
reasons: Firstly, if the Rules provide a specific
qualification, then the same is to be fulfilled. The
advertisement cannot modify or reduce the
qualifications mentioned in the Rules. Secondly,
75
2026:JHHC:13599-DBif some appointments have been made contrary
to the Rules, it would be open to the
applicant(s)/ petitioner(s) to point out the same
before the appointing authority or challenge the
same in the Court of law which shall be dealt with
on its own merits.”
86. In the present case, even if the claim of the appellants is taken to be true,
they cannot claim negative equality since this court has already held that
the appellants were bound to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions
of the advertisements for claiming reservation. It is well settled principle
of law that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative
equality. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred to a
candidate without legal basis or justification, then that benefit cannot be
relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. The principle of equality
cannot be used to perpetuate illegality or compel the State to repeat it.
87. Moreover, those similarly situated candidates who have been given
appointments, have not been arrayed as respondents in the present batch
of cases and thus no order prejudicial to the interest of those candidates
can be passed by this Court. Though, the appellants have claimed that
some of the candidates who have scored lesser marks than them, have
been given appointments, however they were not arrayed as respondents
in the respective writ petitions. Further, though in L.P.A No. 77 of 2020,
the appellants had filed I.A No. 159 of 2024 to implead those similarly
situated persons who had been given appointments, as respondents,
however the said interlocutory application was not pursued by them till
the stage of final argument. We are of the view that the appellants should
have raised the said issue in the writ proceeding itself, however they failed
76
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
to do so. As such, they cannot be allowed to raise such a factual
contention before this Court that too at a belated stage. Even otherwise,
if according to the appellants, some candidates were wrongly appointed
by the JPSC/JSSC, they should have challenged their appointments before
the competent court of law. Nonetheless, on that ground they cannot
claim their appointments.
88. Mr. Krishna Murari has also claimed that out of 44 vacancies, only 8 were
filled and as such 36 posts are still vacant. Under the said circumstance
and looking to the peculiar fact of the case of the appellant-Dr. Nutan
Indwar, she may be given appointment to the advertised post treating her
under reserved category. It is further contended that no prejudice will be
caused to other candidates on giving appointment to the said appellant.
He also urged to consider the case of the said appellant sympathetically.
89. The said argument of Mr. Krishna Murari is also not worth consideration
in view of the fact that the condition for filling up the particulars of the
requisite caste certificate in the online application was a mandatory
requirement and the consequence of its non-compliance was also
mentioned in the advertisement no. 02 of 2016. The said appellant has
to face the consequence of non-adherence to the mandatory
requirement. Under the writ jurisdiction, the High Court is not supposed
to relax the rule/condition of advertisement on mere ground that some
advertised posts have remained vacant. If such a practice is allowed, then
the entire purpose of fixing the cut-off date for submitting requisite
certificate(s) will be redundant. All aspirants are entitled under law to be
treated equally. There cannot be different yardsticks for different set of
aspirants.
77
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
90. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in the respective writ
petitions filed by the writ petitioners/appellants.
91. The present appeals being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed.
92. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
May 07, 2026
Ritesh/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 07.05.2026
78
