Yashika Priya vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar is present.

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sanjay Piprawall is present.

Learned counsel for the private respondent Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh is present.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of direction upon the respondents to reconsider her candidature taking into consideration that she is candidate of BC-1 (Annexure-1) categories and obtained qualifying marks but respondents treating her candidate of BC (Annexure-II) disqualified though her score card shows she obtained qualifying marks.

For further taken into consideration that at the time of submitting application this petitioner has inserted BC- II in the light of the certificate wrongly provided to her and when she examined that Kumhar caste is concerned comes under BC (Annexure-1) categories she pointed out the same and subsequently correcting the same fresh caste certificate was provided, which was not considered by the respondents though the such situation occurred due to their fault.

For further issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint her for the post of English Teacher at Koderma District as she applied, for which she has qualified being candidates of BC (Annexure-1) categories but the same was not properly considered by the respondents, whereas her caste certificate was brought for kind consideration of them.

For asking show cause of the respondents that without any fault in the part of the petitioner her candidature was not considered accordingly as per her actual caste BC-I and disqualified her even though she has secure qualifying marks more i.e. 150, fixed for the candidate of this category.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally having a caste certificate declaring her under BC-II category but her caste is ‘Kumhar’ which actually falls under BC-I category as per the notification of the state government. He submits that on the basis of the caste certificate issued on 06.03.2017 she had participated in the examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Since the cut off marks under BC-II category was 158 and the petitioner had obtained 150 marks, the petitioner was not selected. However, the petitioner actually belongs to BC-I category and if the candidature of the petitioner is considered under BC-I category, she would stand selected. Learned counsel submits that the rectification in the caste certificate was made only on 22.04.2019 and therefore the candidature of the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that selection process is of the year 2016-17 and much time has elapsed and as on date, there is a bar in making any further appointment pursuant to the said advertisement. He also submits that once the caste certificate has been filed by the petitioner and taken into consideration, the rectified caste certificate cannot be taken into consideration for revising the result, as it will have a serious impact on all the other candidates. The learned counsel also submitted that the caste certificate is required to be mentioned in the online application and only such caste certificate which has been mentioned in the on-line application can be taken into consideration. He submits that if the caste certificate is subsequently rectified the same has no meaning and bearing in the selection process. However, he also submits that petitioner may approach the respondent No. 5 for redressal of her grievances which may be considered in accordance with law.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner had never approached the authority under Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and straightway filed this application after rectification of her caste certificate, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and grant any relief to the writ petitioner. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 5 for redressal of her grievance. If the petitioner so approaches respondent No. 5 within a period of one month from today, an appropriate reasoned order be passed by respondent No. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.