2025:JHHC:29711 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. [S] No.575 of 2023 ----- Kumari Sumit, D/o Vijay Singh Soy, R/o Basargarh Road, Ancilary Chowk, Tupudana, Hatia, P.O & P.s. Tupudan, Dist Ranchi .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand 3.Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commissioner, having its office at Circular Road, PO, P.S. Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the Resp- State : Ms. Komal Tiwary, AC to A.G. For the Resp- JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate …...... 05/ 23.09.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as a successful candidate for the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination 2021 (Advt. No.01/2021) (Annexure-3) as the petitioner being S.T. Candidate has secured 562 marks which is more than the cut of marks decided by the respondent no.2 which is 555 for S.T. Candidate. (b) for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents especially respondent no.2 to immediately and forthwith recall/ rescind and thereafter correct the result of the petitioner in the matter of Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination 2021 (Advt. No.01/2021) conducted by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-3) whereby and whereunder the final result of the petitioner shows that she has been treated as an unreserved candidate on account of having uploaded caste certificate of Govt. of India format in violation to clause-7(1) of the advertisement although she got benefit of S.T. Category in PT and mains written result.” 3. It is admitted that the petitioner applied for Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination- 2021, pursuant to the Advertisement No.01 of 2021. 4. Caste Certificate which the petitioner has furnished is in respect of seeking appointment under the Government of India. This was not what the JPSC had sought for. Thus, her certificate is not in a proper format. Further, her caste certificate is was issued on 28.08.2021 that is after the last date of submission of form which was 22.03.2021. 5. What would be the fate of a candidate, if he files certificate after the cut-off date and if certificate is not in a proper format has been dealt by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases in L.P.A. No.64 of 2020. The Full Bench clearly dealt with this issue and has held that the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 cannot be applied irrespective of the fact, nor it can be applied if the Caste Certificate is not produced on or before the cut-off date. The Full Bench of this Court also took into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya versus Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 448 wherein it has been held that if there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/ advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application. It has also been held by the Full Bench that Caste Certificate should be in a proper format. Paragraphs 42 and 49 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:- 42. We hold that once a specific format and the authority to issue certificate has been prescribed, the same has to be followed strictly. The prescription of a format or designating any authority cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the prescription made is applicable to all concerned without any discrimination. The caste certificate, which is not in the prescribed format and has not been issued by the authority, as prescribed, cannot be considered. What would be the status of those candidates, who produce such certificates, which is not in a prescribed format as mandated by the Rules or advertisement, has already been taken note of and has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125. 49. Taking a cue from Mohit Kumar (supra), it is clear that if a candidate furnishes caste certificate in the format prescribed for employment in the Central Government, for an application seeking appointment under the State Government, the same cannot be said to be in a proper format and his claim for reservation can be rejected. 6. In the aforesaid judgment, three questions which were framed are as follows:- 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 -2- 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 Article 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? 7. The analysis of question A and C is in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Full Bench, which reads as follows:- 39. To summarise, from what has been held above, it is clear that: - (a) If a cut-off date is fixed for submitting documents by the Rules, the same has to be followed and in absence of any cut-off date in the Rules, the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement has to be strictly followed and if there is no cut-off date in the advertisement also, then the last date of application should be treated to be the cut-off date. The cutoff date is sacrosanct and the conditions and eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement must be read in harmony with the cut- off date. The cut-off date cannot be changed nor any authority can impliedly shift the cut-off date by giving relaxation to fulfill a criteria, which ought to have been fulfilled by the candidate within the said cut- off date. It is also clear that a person, who acquires prescribed qualification after the cut-off date is not eligible to be considered and they cannot get any preferential treatment. Possessing a valid caste certificate / necessary certificate issued by the competent authorities in a prescribed format on the cut-off date is the prescribed qualification. The analysis of question B is in paragraph 52 of the judgment of the Full Bench, which reads as follows:- 52. The off shoot of the analysis and the judgments is that a candidate must adhere to the conditions and requirements, which have been prescribed in the Rules. There cannot be any deviation. Certificate, which has been prescribed to be furnished in a proper format should be in the format as prescribed. Similarly, if an authority has been prescribed to issue the said certificate, the certificate issued by the said authority only will be accepted. Certificate issued by any other authority, which is not in the format cannot be accepted. Further, Article 335 of the Constitution of India has no application in this matter, inasmuch by prescribing an authority and the format, the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Other Backward Class as a whole is not excluded from getting the benefit of reservation. It is only an individual in that group, who does not qualify or does not possess the requisite qualification / certificate is debarred. Disqualifying an individual within the class cannot be said to be deprivation of entire class. 8. Ultimately the answer to the reference was given at para 53 which is as follows:- 53. In view of what has been observed and discussed above and in the light of -3- the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases as cited hereinbefore, answer to Reference Questions are as follows: - (A) Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) cannot be applied irrespective of the facts of the case nor can it 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 or in case if no date is prescribed, in either of the two, then on the last date of submission of application. (B) The Clause 9(gha) of the advertisement, which stipulates for obtaining caste certificate from the authority prescribed and how a candidate shall be treated in absence of such certificate, by no means violates Article 14, Article 16 or Article 335 of the Constitution of India. (C) Fixing/providing a condition in the advertisement that the caste certificate in a proper format should be in possession of the candidate on the last date of making the application cannot be said to be in exercise of excessive delegation of power neither it is beyond the power conferred upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission / Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Further, in absence of possession of the caste certificate in proper format on the last date of making the application or the cut-off date prescribed in the Rules or that in the Advertisement, treating the candidate as a candidate of un-reserved category is also not illegal nor the same can be considered to be an exercise of excessive delegation of power neither it is beyond the power conferred upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission / Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment and fact that the caste certificate was not in a proper format and issued after the cut-off date, petitioner is not entitled for any relief, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23rd September, 2025 R.S./ -4-