2025:JHHC:15325-DB -1 of 7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 359 of 2024 1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi. 2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi. 3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Examination Controller, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi. ... Appellants Versus 1. Manoj Kachhap, Aged - 32 years, son of Bhoja Oraon, Resident of Village & P.O. Khukhar, P.S Narkopi (Bero), District, Ranchi. 2. The State of Jharkhand ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate. Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- C.A.V. On: 11.06.2025 Pronounced On: 13.06.2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission aggrieved by the judgment dt. 06.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4935 of 2021. The Background facts 2. Respondent No. 1 herein belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. 3. A post of Assistant Professor in the subject - Nagpuri language was advertised by the Commission through an advertisement dt. 17.07.2018. 4. Respondent no. 1 participated in the selection process by depositing examination fee of Rs.150/-. His application was entertained 2025:JHHC:15325-DB -2 of 7- and he was awarded 72.10 marks out of 85 marks in the written examination. 5. Objections were invited from other candidates including the 1st respondent and this information was published on the appellants’ website on 22.02.2020. 6. Thereafter list of shortlisted candidates for interview was published on 23.11.2021 in which the 1st respondent’s name was missing although a person scoring less marks than him was called for the interview. 7. So the 1st respondent filed W.P. (C) No.4935 of 2021. 8. On 09.12.2021, the learned Single Judge passed the following order in W.P. (C) No.4935 of 2021:- “The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.1 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Nagpuri) pursuant to Advisement No. 05/2018 as he is the highest scorer and suitable for the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (JPSC) had published Advertisement No. 05/2018 for making appointment against the backlog posts of Assistant Professors in different subjects. The petitioner being eligible in terms with the said advertisement, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in ‘Nagpuri’. He accordingly submitted his application form on 25.08.2018. On scrutiny and acceptance of his candidature, the petitioner was found to have obtained 72.10 marks out of total marks of 85. However, he was surprised to acknowledge that his name did not find place in the list of the candidates under the Scheduled Tribe category, who were called for interview by the JPSC. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that the interview for the said posts is likely to be conducted shortly by the JPSC. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC, on instruction, submits that the application fee of Rs.150/- claimed to have been paid by the petitioner, was never credited in the account of the JPSC and hence he was not called for the said interview. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 2025:JHHC:15325-DB -3 of 7- keeping in view the issue involved in the present writ petition, the respondent-JPSC is directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be conducted for the concerned post, if the same has not yet been conducted. However, the result of the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. Put up this case in the last week of January, 2022. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner shall positively remove the remaining defects pointed out by the office.” 9. The final result was published on 23.12.2021, but the result for the Schedule Tribe category post of Assistant Professor in the subject - Nagpuri language was withheld. The judgment in the Writ petition 10. The learned Single Judge called for the marks of the interview in sealed cover and noticed that the 1st respondent got 09.50 marks out of 15 marks and in all obtained 75.60 out of 100 marks and that he stood no. 1 in the category of Schedule Tribe for the post of Assistant Professor for the subject - Nagpuri language. 11. Before the learned single Judge, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the appellant-JPSC, contended that the application fee of Rs.150/- claimed to have been paid by the petitioner, was never credited in the account of the JPSC and hence he was not called for the said interview. 12. The learned Single Judge considered the said objection of the appellant-Commission. He noted that though the transaction of payment of Rs.150/- made by the 1st respondent had failed, the 1st respondent was not aware of the same and since he was allowed to participate in the process, he had no such apprehension that it was not in fact credited to the account of the J.P.S.C. 2025:JHHC:15325-DB -4 of 7- 13. He also considered the judgments cited by the appellants in State of Tamil Nadu and others-Vs-G. Hemalathaa and another, (2020) 19 SCC 430 and Bedanga Talukdar Vs Saifudaullah Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85. and recorded that the 1st respondent had, after making application for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject - Nagpuri language also made payment of the examination fee but due to failure in the transaction, payment could not be credited in the account of the appellants, but he has been allowed to participate in the selection process, that he had secured no.1 position in the Schedule Tribe category, and only at the time of interview, this defect of non-receipt of the examination fee of Rs.150/- came to light. 14. 14. The learned single Judge held that in the judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu and others (Supra), the issue was different and it related to not following instructions issued regarding manner of writing the answer sheet and in Bedanga Talukdar (Supra), the application was incomplete and the necessary documents were not annexed, and so both the decisions were distinguishable. 15. The learned Single Judge then held that for the members of Schedule Tribe, examination fee is also sometimes exempted and it is not such a criteria upon which a candidature can be rejected, considering that the 1st respondent had made the payment and it was only due to transaction failure, the payment could not be credited in the account of the J.P.S.C. and it came to be discovered only at the time of issuance of the interview letter. 16. The learned Single Judge also noted that one seat had been kept vacant for the purpose of the case pursuant to the order dt. 2025:JHHC:15325-DB -5 of 7- 09.12.2021 and the 1st respondent is entitled for appointment in the said post. 17. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed. 18. Counsel for the J.P.S.C. reiterated the contention that non- payment of the examination fee is fatal and a candidate cannot be provided employment in such circumstances. 19. Admittedly, persons who were determined as belonging to the Schedule Tribe community like the 1st respondent would be eligible to claim reservation under Article 15 (4) and Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India in admission to educational institutions including those imparting professional education like Engineering, Medicine and other professional courses etc. and also for appointments in State Government and its instrumentalities. 20. This is because members of such communities had undergone handicaps, disabilities, disadvantages, indignities and sufferings unlike a candidate who had the advantageous start in life by being born in a general caste. 21. The persons belonging to Schedule Tribe community also suffer from socio-economic including educational backwardness vis-a-vis the rest of the population of the State apart from historical, geographical isolation. Moreover they have distinct language/dialect and have a separate culture relating to life style, marriage, songs, dance, paintings, folklore. 22. These all are the basis for conferring reservation on them by the Constitution of India. 2025:JHHC:15325-DB -6 of 7- 23. After facing such backwardness and disadvantage, if a Schedule Tribe candidate like the 1st respondent secures 72.10 marks out of 85 marks in the written examination and 09.50 marks out of 15 marks in the interview, and is placed at serial No. 1 in the Schedule Tribe category for the post of Assistant Professor for the subject - Nagpuri language, it would be a travesty of justice, if he is deprived of employment on the pretext that the payment of Rs.150/- made by him for examination fee had failed, which failure came to be noticed only at the stage of the interview because he was allowed to participate in the selection process. The constitutional purpose of providing reservation for persons like the 1st respondent, that too a bright and deserving candidate, cannot be allowed to be defeated and he cannot be denied employment on such grounds. 24. Though counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment in Pragya Sambhavi-Vs.-State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P. (S) No. 1445 of 2019, dt. 08.05.2019 and also the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union Public Service Commission-Vs.- Amitesh Mishra and others, neither of these cases relate to a person belonging to the Schedule Tribe community. 25. As stated above, it would be a travesty of justice to deny employment to a person belonging to Schedule Tribe category who has faced lot of difficulties in life to educate himself and also to survive in life and who got to be at S.No.1 in the Scheduled Tribe category on the pretext that the examination fee paid by him did not stand credited to the J.P.S.C. 2025:JHHC:15325-DB -7 of 7- 26. We therefore do not find any error in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. 27. Consequently, the L.P.A. is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) to be paid by the appellants to the 1st respondent within eight weeks. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) APK