IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.472 of 2023

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18940 of 2019

======================================================

1.The Bihar Public Service Commission through the Secretary, Bailey Road,

Patna.

2.The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service

Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

... ... Respondents/Appellants

Versus

1.Dr. Sushma Sharan, daughter of Late M.C. Ram, Resident of C/C-56, P C

Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.

….. Petitioner/Respondent

2.The State of Bihar.

3.The Principal Secretary, Medical, Education and Family Welfare Department

of Health, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

... ...Respondents/Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellants: Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate

Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate

Mr. P. N. Pathak, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date : 30-10-2026

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment

dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC

No.18940 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the respondents

have been directed to consider the case of the respondent no.1

for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

2/26

department of Obstetrics and Gynecology under scheduled caste

category on the basis of her merit, if she is found otherwise

suitable and then it has been directed that she shall be offered

appointment from the date similarly placed persons having

lower merit than her have been appointed, however without all

consequential benefits, except what has been specified in the

said judgment.

2.The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement

bearing No.20/2017 was published by the Bihar Public Service

Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the BPSC”) for

appointment of 74 Assistant Professors in various Medical

Colleges and Hospitals, out of which 13 posts were reserved for

scheduled caste category and out of the said 13 posts, 5 posts

were earmarked for female candidates. The respondent no.1 had

applied in pursuance to the said advertisement published in the

year 2017 for being appointed on the post of Assistant Professor

in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology under the

scheduled caste category along with the requisite documents and

caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer vide

Certificate No.1598 dated 02.08.2006. The application of the

respondent no.1 was then scrutinized and upon finding the same

to be in order, the BPSC had issued interview letter to the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

3/26

respondent no.1, whereafter the respondent no.1 had appeared in

the interview on 28.02.2018. Thereafter, all the requisite original

documents, including caste certificate of the respondent no.1

were also verified. The result of successful candidates was

published on 08.08.2019, however the name of the respondent

no.1 did not find place under the scheduled caste category.

3.The respondent no.1 had pleaded in the writ petition that

she is daughter of Late Mahim Chand Ram, who belongs to the

scheduled caste category, as is apparent from the caste

certificate dated 17.08.2019, issued by the Circle Officer, Patna

Sadar, apart from the fact that her husband, namely Ganga

Sharan also belongs to scheduled caste category. The respondent

no.1 being aggrieved on account of her not being selected as

Assistant Professor in the department of Obstetrics and

Gynecology under the scheduled caste category in connection

with Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 had filed a writ petition

bearing CWJC No.18940 of 2019, inter alia praying therein to

direct the respondents to declare the result of the respondent

no.1 against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category

in connection with Advertisement No.20 of 2017.

4.The BPSC had filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

4/26

before the writ Court stating therein that Advertisement Nos.

7/2017 to 31/2017 were issued on the basis of requisition

received from the Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar dated

26.02.2016, in terms of Bihar Health Service Recruitment

Rules, 2008 and Revised Rules, 2013 whereby and whereunder

altogether 1171 posts of Assistant Professor were requisitioned

in different faculties of Medical Colleges & Hospitals as also

under the Health Department, Govt. of Bihar. It had been further

stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent no.1 had

applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology in connection with Advertisement

No.20/2017 and finding her to be eligible, she was allotted Roll

No.200016 under the scheduled caste category. Thereafter,

interview was held in between 26.02.2018 to 28.02.2018,

whereafter a combined merit list was prepared on the basis of

academic marks and interview marks of the candidates and then

result of 37 successful candidates was published on 08.08.2019,

however the respondent no.1 was unsuccessful because of her

lower merit position in the unreserved category. It is submitted

that the candidature of respondent no.1 was not considered

under the reserved category since she had submitted her caste

certificate issued in the name of her husband which should have

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

5/26

been in the name of her father. The minutes of meeting

convened on 08.08.2019 of all the members of the Commission

was also produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the

BPSC wherein the case of the respondent no.1 was discussed

and it had been observed that during the course of verification

of the application forms/certificates/documents of the candidates

at the level of the commission, it was found that the married

females belonging to reserved category had submitted non-

creamy layer certificate/caste certificate containing the name of

husband instead of father, hence for rectification of the same,

one chance was given to the candidates by publishing notice in

the daily newspaper and on the website of the Commission on

16.07.2018 & 21.07.2018 so that correct certificate could be

submitted on 06.08.2018 or 07.08.2018, failing which

candidature of such candidates would be considered/included in

the unreserved category.

5.The learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned

judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed in CWJC No.18940 of 2019

has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to

consider the case of the respondent no.1 herein for appointment

on the post of Assistant Professor in the department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

6/26

on the basis of her merit on the following grounds: -

(i) The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Aarav Jain vs. the Bihar Public Service Commission

& Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4242 of 2022) and connected

civil appeals wherein one of the appellant, namely Anita

Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 4247 of 2022) had applied

under the category of SC (female) but at the time of

interview, she had submitted a caste certificate which

contained the name of her husband but later on, she had

submitted a caste certificate mentioning the name of her

father, however her candidature was not considered under

the scheduled caste category. Nonetheless, the Hon’ble

Apex Court by a judgment dated 23.05.2022 held in

paragraph nos.14 to 16 as follows :-

“14. Upon such submissions, it has been submitted

that the decision of the Commission rejecting their

candidature was per se illegal, unwarranted,

unreasonable and too harsh. All the eight

appellants who were duly qualified and duly

selected have been deprived of their appointment

as Judicial Officers. Admittedly, all the Appellants

had secured more marks than the last selected

candidate in their respective category. It is further

submitted that even the High Court committed an

error in dismissing their petitions.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

7/26

15. On the other hand, it has been submitted on

behalf of the BPSC and the State that they could

not relax any of the condition which were

mentioned in the advertisement or their brochure

or the interview call letter at different stages. Any

such relaxation would amount to not following

their own prescribed procedure which was not

within their domain. It is also submitted that

appellants knowing fully well the condition

regarding submission of the original Certificates/

Documents at the time of interview having failed to

do so, their candidature was rightly rejected.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, without entering into the respective argument

we are of the considered view that the rejection of

the candidates was improper, unjustified and not

warranted. We have also taken note of the fact that

there are vacancies available, which if filled up by

meritorious candidates would only be an asset for

the institution helping in disposal of cases pending

in huge numbers.”

(ii) The learned Single Judge has also relied on a

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman Jee & Ors., reported in

(2005) 9 SCC 779 wherein it has been held that as far as

production of necessary certificates, in order to avail the

benefit of reserved category, etc. is concerned, there can

be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof

and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it

pertains in the domain of procedure as also every

infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

8/26

not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.

(iii) The status of an SC/ST and OBC candidate cannot

be denied and such candidate cannot be forced to be

treated as a general category candidate, hence the action

of the BPSC in treating the respondent no.1 herein as a

general category candidate is wrong.

(iv)The Appointing Authorities should give due

weightage to a caste certificate issued by the authorities

and if an earlier certificate is not in conformity with the

latest guidelines, it does not mean that the candidate has

lost its status of being from SC/ST category or from EBC

or other reserved categories, hence on account of such

reasons, a candidate cannot be denied his/her rightful

claim in his/her own category.

(v) The State Government issues certificate to the person

belonging to SC, ST, EBC, BC and other categories,

hence the responsibility lies with the officers of the

Government to issue certificates which are acceptable to

the employment units and to the selecting bodies, who

follow their instructions.

6.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated

14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

9/26

CWJC No.18940 of 2019, the BPSC/appellants have filed the

present appeal.

7.The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has submitted

by referring to the caste certificate dated 02.08.2016, produced

by the respondent no.1 herein that the same has been issued by

the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna Sadar whereas the

advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidate belonging to

SC/ST category is required to produce caste certificate issued by

the concerned Circle Officer. It is also submitted that the said

prescription has also been mentioned in the interview letter

issued to the respondent no.1, however still the respondent no.1

had not produced any caste certificate issued by the concerned

Circle Officer. It is next submitted that the caste certificate dt.

17.08.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna has

been produced for the first time in the writ petition filed by the

respondent no.1 herein on 20.08.2019, hence the same cannot be

taken into consideration. Nonetheless, the learned Sr. Counsel

for the BPSC has referred to the minutes of meeting convened

on 08.08.2019 of all the members of the Commission wherein

the case of the respondent no.1 has been discussed and it has

been observed that during the course of verification of the

application forms/certificates/documents of the candidates at the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

10/26

level of the commission, it was found that married females

belonging to reserved category had submitted non-creamy layer

certificate/caste certificate containing the name of husband

instead of father, hence for rectification of the same, one chance

was given to the candidates by publishing notice in the daily

newspaper and on the website of the Commission on 16.07.2018

& 21.07.2018 so that correct certificate could be submitted on

06.08.2018 or 07.08.2018, failing which candidature of such

candidates were to be considered in the unreserved category.

8.Thus, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the

BPSC that on account of the fact that the caste certificate

furnished by the respondent no.1 contains the name of her

husband instead of her father, the candidature of the respondent

no.1 was considered in the merit-list of unreserved category,

hence she could not succeed since under the unreserved

category cut-off marks was 37.50 whereas the respondent no.1

had secured only 29 marks and was placed at merit position 50,

however the last candidate in the unreserved category was

placed at merit position 27. The learned Sr. Counsel for the

appellants has submitted that as far as the judgment rendered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aarav Jain (supra) is

concerned, the same is confined to the facts and circumstances

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

11/26

of the said case only, hence the same cannot be treated as a

precedent. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has,

however relied on a judgment rendered by the learned Full

Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad vs. the

State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 34, more

particularly to paragraph no.26 thereof to contend that it has

been held therein that where the advertisement specifies the last

date for filing of supporting or other documents and that date

must be given effect to, thus any document received after such

date shall be rejected by the selecting authority.

9.The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has next relied

upon a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in the case of Vandana Govindam vs. the State of Bihar &

Ors., reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 585 to contend that every

candidate seeking employment in public service has to abide by

the terms and conditions of advertisement and caste certificate

submitted after the date of interview cannot be entertained, thus

since the caste certificate produced by the respondent no.1 was

not issued by the competent authority, as required as per the

stipulation in the Advertisement No.20/2017 and moreover,

since the caste certificate of the respondent no.1 contains the

name of her husband instead of her father, her candidature has

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

12/26

rightly been placed in the unreserved category, therefore the

impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023 is required to be set aside.

10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

no.1 has submitted that the only ground on which the

respondent no.1 has been declared to be unsuccessful in the

aforesaid recruitment process is that caste certificate which she

had submitted does not contain the name of her father but

instead contains the name of her husband. In this connection, it

is submitted that a bare perusal of the entire Advertisement No.

20/2017 would show that no such stipulation has been

prescribed anywhere regarding the requirement of furnishing a

caste certificate containing the name of the father of a candidate,

which has also been admitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the

BPSC to be non-existent. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the

learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 that not only the

father of the respondent no.1, but also the husband of

respondent no.1 belongs to scheduled caste category and neither

there is any objection on this score nor any allegation has been

levelled by the BPSC regarding either the father or the husband

of the respondent no.1 not belonging to the scheduled caste

category. As regards the issue raised by the learned Sr. Counsel

for the BPSC to the effect that the case certificate ought to have

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

13/26

been issued by the concerned Circle Officer whereas the same

has been issued by the concerned Sub-divisional Officer, it has

been submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent

no.1 that the minutes of meeting convened on 08.08.2019 of all

the members of the Commission would show that respondent

no.1 had been put under unreserved category not for this reason

but on account of the fact that the caste certificate furnished by

the respondent no.1 contains the name of her husband instead of

her father. However, it is submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel

for the respondent no.1 that in any view of the matter, the Sub-

divisional Officer is an officer higher in rank to the Circle

Officer and the caste certificate is of the year 2006, when the

competent authority for issuing caste certificate was the

concerned Sub-divisional Officer and not the Circle Officer,

thus once the caste certificate has been issued by the competent

officer/authority, the same cannot be brushed aside by the

appointing authority and in fact due weightage ought to be given

to such a certificate, inasmuch as the caste certificate being not

in conformity with the latest guideline would not mean that the

candidate has lost its status of belonging to scheduled caste

category, thus on such trivial issue the candidature of the

respondent no.1 could not have been put under the unreserved

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

14/26

category. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 has

next referred to the caste certificate dated 17.08.2019 issued by

the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna wherein the name of the

father of the petitioner has been mentioned, hence it is

submitted that the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed

by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with and in view

the vacancies still being there, the respondent no.1 is required to

be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the

department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The learned Senior

Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that it is apparent

from the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings that five

seats have remained vacant thus the respondent no.1 can very

well be accommodated.

11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 has also

referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services

Selection Board & Anr., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, to

submit that it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that

candidature of those candidates, who belong to SC/ST

categories cannot be rejected simply on account of late

submission of caste certificate, inasmuch as the same would

amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

15/26

Articles, 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. It

would be apposite to reproduce paragraph nos.15 to 18 of the

judgment rendered in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra),

herein below:-

“15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this

Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] has been extracted in

Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC

OnLine Del 281] along with the speech delivered by Dr

Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and reads thus:

(Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para 9)

“9. … ‘251. Referring to the concept of equality of

opportunity in public employment, as embodied in

Article 10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally

emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the

conflicting claims of various communities for

representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar

emphatically declared that reservation should be

confined to “a minority of seats”, lest the very concept

of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great

importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the

Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this

judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it.

Dr Ambedkar stated:

“… firstly, that there shall be equality of

opportunity, secondly, that there shall be

reservations in favour of certain communities which

have not so far had a ‘proper look-in’ so to say into

the administration. … Supposing, for instance, we

were to concede in full the demand of those

communities who have not been so far employed in

the public services to the fullest extent, what would

really happen is, we shall be completely destroying

the first proposition upon which we are all agreed,

namely, that there shall be an equality of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

16/26

opportunity. … Therefore the seats to be reserved, if

the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause

(1) of Article 10, [Ed.: The matter between two

asterisks has been emphasised in Indra Sawhney

case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.] must be confined to

a minority of seats [Ed.: The matter between two

asterisks has been emphasised in Indra Sawhney

case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.]. It is then only that

the first principle could find its place in the

Constitution and effective in operation. … we have

to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of

equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy

the demand of communities which have not had so

far representation in the State….” [Constituent

Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-02 (1948-1949).]

These words embody the raison d'être of reservation

and its limitations. Reservation is one of the

measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the

continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming

from discriminatory practices against various

classes of people which have resulted in their social,

educational and economic backwardness.

Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present

social, educational and economic backwardness

caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To

attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of

such injustice, the Constitution permits and

empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even

when they have discriminatory and exclusionary

effects. Any such measure, insofar as one group is

preferred to the exclusion of another, must

necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement

of the fundamental constitutional goal.’ (Indra

Sawhney case [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,

1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], SCC, para 251)”

16. In Pushpa, relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh

[1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092] have also been extracted,

which read thus:

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

17/26

“11. … ‘15. The matter can be looked into from

another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-

6-1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for

various categories including SC category. Thus in

order to be considered for the post reserved for SC

category, the requirement is that a person should

belong to SC category. If a person is SC he is so by

birth and not by acquisition of this category because of

any other event happening at a later stage. A

certificate issued by competent authority to this effect

is only an affirmation of fact which is already in

existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable

the authorities to believe in the assertion of the

candidate that he belongs to SC category and act

thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his

belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did

not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that

acquired the status of being SC only on the date of

issuance of the certificate. In view of this position,

necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-

1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale

objective sought to be achieved.

16. While taking a particular view in such matters one

has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of

SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate

prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are

enabling provisions authorising the Government to

make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST

categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend

to remove social and economic inequality to make

equal opportunities available in reality. Social and

economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of

society. The right in social and economic justice

envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the

fundamental rights and directive principles of the

Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38,

39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the

poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

18/26

society meaningful.’ (Tej Pal Singh case [Tej Pal Singh

v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092]”

17. Further, in Pushpa [2009 SCC OnLine Del 281],

relevant portion from the judgment of Valsamma Paul

case [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC

545] has also been extracted, which reads as under:

“11. … ‘17. … “21. The Constitution through its

Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles

created a secular State based on the principle of

equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance

between the rights of the individuals and the duty and

commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian

social order.”

18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in

Pushpa [2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] is in conformity

with the position of law laid down by this Court, which

have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the

High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the

binding precedent on the question laid down by the

Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney

[Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC

217] and Valsamma Paul [(1996) 3 SCC 545] wherein

this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and

39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that

the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and

educationally and socially backward classes of the

society is to remove inequality in public employment, as

candidates belonging to these categories are unable to

compete with the candidates belonging to the general

category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and

deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of

reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution

as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive

principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of

giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The

Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

19/26

order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the Division

Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not

only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has

failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of

this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] and Valsamma Paul

[Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC

545]. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order [Delhi

Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Ram Kumar

Gijroya, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 472] passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside

and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated

24-11-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram

Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [Ram Kumar

Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), WP (C) No. 382 of 2009,

order dated 24-11-2010 (Del)] is hereby restored.”

12.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the materials on record from which it is clear that an

advertisement bearing No.20/2017 was published by the BPSC

for appointment of 74 Assistant Professors in various Medical

Colleges and Hospitals, out of which 13 posts were reserved for

scheduled caste category and out of the said 13 posts, 5 posts

were earmarked for female candidates. The respondent no.1 had

applied in pursuance to the said advertisement for being

appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category

along with the requisite documents and caste certificate issued

by the Sub-divisional Officer vide Certificate No.1598 dated

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

20/26

02.08.2006. The application of the respondent no.1 was

scrutinized and upon finding the same to be in order, the BPSC

had issued interview letter to her, whereafter she had appeared

in the interview on 28.02.2018. Thereafter, all the requisite

original documents, including caste certificate of the respondent

no.1 were verified. The result of successful candidates was

published on 08.08.2019, however the name of the respondent

no.1 did not find place under the scheduled caste category.

13.The respondent no.1 being aggrieved on account of her

not being selected as Assistant Professor in the department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology under the scheduled caste category

in connection with Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 had filed a

writ petition bearing CWJC No.18940 of 2019, inter alia

praying therein to direct the respondents to declare the result of

the respondent no.1 against the aforesaid post under the

scheduled caste category. The respondent no.1 has pleaded in

the writ petition that she is daughter of Late Mahim Chand Ram,

who belongs to the scheduled caste category, as is apparent from

the caste certificate dated 17.08.2019, issued by the Circle

Officer, Patna Sadar, apart from the fact that her husband,

namely Ganga Sharan also belongs to scheduled caste category.

14.The BPSC had filed a counter affidavit to the aforesaid

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

21/26

writ petition stating therein that Advertisement Nos. 7/2017 to

31/2017 were issued on the basis of requisition received from

the Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar dt. 26.2.2016, in terms

of Bihar Health Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 and Revised

Rules, 2013. As far as the respondent no.1 is concerned, she had

applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology in connection with Advertisement

No.20/2017 and finding her to be eligible, she was allotted Roll

No.200016 under the scheduled caste category, whereafter,

interview was held and then a combined merit list was prepared

on the basis of academic marks and interview marks of the

candidates. The result of 37 successful candidates was then

published on 08.08.2019, however the respondent no.1 was

unsuccessful because of her lower merit position in the

unreserved category. The candidature of respondent no.1 is

stated to have not been considered under the reserved category

since she had submitted her caste certificate issued in the name

of her husband which should have been in the name of her

father. The minutes of meeting convened on 08.8.2019 has been

referred to, wherein it has been observed that during the course

of verification of application forms/certificates/ documents of

the candidates at the level of the commission, it was found that

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

22/26

the married females belonging to reserved category had

submitted non-creamy layer certificate/caste certificate

containing the name of husband instead of father, hence for

rectification of the same, one chance was given to the

candidates by publishing notice in the daily newspaper and on

the website of the Commission so that correct certificate could

be submitted, failing which it was postulated that the

candidature of such candidates would be considered in the

unreserved category. Thus, the candidature of the respondent

no.1 was considered under the unreserved category since she

had submitted her caste certificate issued in the name of her

husband which should have been in the name of her father, thus

she was unsuccessful because of her lower merit position in the

unreserved category.

15.The learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned

judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed in CWJC No.18940 of 2019

has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to

consider the case of the respondent no.1 for appointment on the

post of Assistant Professor in the department of Obstetrics and

Gynecology under the scheduled caste category on the basis of

her merit. The said judgment dated 14.02.2023 is under

challenge in the present appeal, filed by the appellants/BPSC.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

23/26

16.Having heard the Ld. Senior Counsels for the parties, we

find that the issue which is required to be decided in the present

appeal is as to whether non-mentioning of the name of the father

of the respondent no.1 in the caste certificate dated 02.08.2006

and instead mentioning the name of her husband would entail

consideration of the candidature of the respondent no.1 under

the unreserved category. To this, our answer is in negative, for

the reason that a bare perusal of the entire terms and conditions

mentioned in the aforesaid Advertisement No.20/2007 would

show that no such condition is prescribed therein, i.e. to the

effect that the caste certificate to be submitted by the SC/ST

candidate should contain the name of the father of the candidate

and not the husband of a married female candidate.

17.Yet another ancillary issue which arises for consideration

is as to whether the caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional

Officer, Patna Sadar dated 02.08.2006 would be a relevant proof

of the factum of the respondent no.1 belonging to scheduled

caste category or not, especially in absence of such caste

certificate having been issued by the Circle Officer, which in

any view of the matter was subsequently issued by the Circle

Officer, Patna Sadar on 17.08.2019 containing the name of the

father of the respondent no.1 as well. In this regard, we would

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

24/26

first of all refer to the judgment rendered by the learned Full

Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad (supra),

paragraph no.26 (d) whereof is reproduced herein below:-

“26. (d) In appropriate cases where this Court is satisfied

that a case of extreme hardship or injustice has resulted

on account of factors beyond the control of the concerned

candidate, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction

may grant relief in deserving cases. But in doing so, the

Court must be satisfied that the candidate concerned has

acted diligently, and is not guilty of delay or laches in

taking necessary steps for procuring the requisite

certificates etc. However, no relief shall be granted where

the requisite certificate is produced for the first time after

the process of selection is complete and the selecting

authority has made its recommendation.”

18.Thus, it is apparent from what has been held by the

learned Full Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in the

case of Braj Kishore Prasad (supra), as aforesaid that the

powers of the writ court are not fettered, thus it may grant relief

in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in deserving cases and this is

exactly what has been done by the writ court in the present case.

19.It is a well-settled law that a certificate issued by the

competent authority regarding a person belonging to a

scheduled caste category by birth is only an affirmation of the

fact which is already in existence and the purpose of such

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

25/26

certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion

of the candidate that he/she belongs to the scheduled caste

category and act thereon by giving benefit to such candidate for

him belonging to the scheduled caste category. In the present

case, it is not denied by the authorities of the BPSC that the

respondent no.1 does not belong to the scheduled caste category,

thus keeping in mind the objective behind the post of SC/ST

category, as per the constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles

15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which are enabling

provisions, authorising the Government to make special

provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories and taking

into account the object of providing reservation to educationally

and socially backward scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,

i.e. to remove the inequality in public employment as the

candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete

with candidates belonging to general category, the candidature

of respondent no.1 could not have been rejected as a scheduled

caste category candidate merely on the ground of non-existent

technicalities/reasons, though it has not been disputed by the

appellants that the Sub-divisional Officer, who had issued the

caste certificate dated 02.08.2006, is an officer higher in rank to

the Circle Officer, apart from the fact that the respondent no.1

Patna High Court L.P.A No.472 of 2023 dt.30.10.2026

26/26

had also produced the caste certificate issued by the Circle

Officer, Patna Sadar dated 17.08.2019, which has been annexed

to the writ petition.

20.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in

the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned

Single Judge in CWJC No.18940 of 2019, hence the present

appeal stands dismissed.

kanchan/-

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 03.08.2026

Uploading Date 30 .10.2026

Transmission Date NA