Dismissed

Sunil Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Oct 2022CWJC/1128/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his selection classification as General Category after raising objections that his caste (Teli) was later notified as Most Backward Class. Court held advertisement barred rectification of reserved category claims. Only errors in Commission-uploaded details could be objected to. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction was not allowed and is dismissed along with alternative applications.

Sunil Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1128 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Sunil Prasad Gupta son of Ras Bihari Sah, resident of Village- Shankarpur, Post Office Kako, Police Staion Bhairav Asthan, District- Madhubani, at present posted as Agriculture Coordinator, Andhrathadi Block, Madhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, Veterinary College, Patna- 14.

¶10

The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna- 14.

¶11

The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna14.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Raghwanand, GA XI Mr Sanjay Kr Tiwari, AC to GA XI For the Commission : Mr Gyan Shankar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 11-10-2022

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶15

2 The petitioner was an applicant in the process of selection of Agriculture Coordinator. The specific case of the petitioner is that at the time of filling application, he had claimed to be a member of Backward Class Category (for brevity, BC ).

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.1128 of 2018 dt.11-10-2022 2/6

¶17

The petitioner's result, however, has been published treating him to be a General Category Candidate. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that just before filling up of application form, the petitioner’s caste “Teli” had been notified as Most Backward Class (for brevity, MBC ). The petitioner was oblivious of such notification issued on 28.04.2015. Therefore, at the time of filling up of application form on 20.05.2015, he has claimed to be a member of BC category as prior to the notification dated 28.04.2015, the petitioner’s caste was coming under BC category. By the time, the petitioner was called for counselling, he had realized the mistake committed and, therefore, at the time of counselling, he had submitted a non-creamy layer certificate claiming to be a member of MBC category. RespondentCommission, in the process of selection, has come out with a notice dated 22.05.2017 inviting objections from all candidates who are desirous of making any objection. The petitioner, pursuant to the said notice, has lodged his objection on the website wherein he has stated as follows:

¶18

“I am in MBC category and submit caste/non-creamy layer certificate of MBC at the time of counselling, but form applied/filled in BC category. This information is also given by me at the time of counselling.

¶19

Please consider BC into MBC. I am in MBC (Teli jati). It is my primary objection.”

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.1128 of 2018 dt.11-10-2022 3/6

¶21

3 It is the submission of petitioner’s counsel that even though he has made his objection for rectification of the caste category, the same has not been considered and he has been treated as a General Category Candidate in the process of selection and, therefore, remained unsuccessful.

¶22

4 Learned counsel for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (for brevity, the Commission ), on the other hand, draws attention of the Court towards the Advertisement. Clause 4 (iii) of the Advertisement is relied upon by the learned counsel for the Commission and, therefore, this Court would consider it prudent to take notice of the same by quoting it. Clause 4 (iii) of the Advertisement reads as follows:

¶23

“ vkWuykbZu vkosnu&i= esa nkok fd;s x;s vkj{k.k Js.kh esa fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa ifjoZru ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk bl laca/k esa fdlh Hkh vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA xyr vkj{k.k dk nkok djus ij mUgsa vukjf{kr Js.kh esa ekuk tk;sxkA vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ;g funZs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd viuh tkfr ,oa lacaf/kr Js.kh dks Hkjrs le; os fcgkj ljdkj ds vf/kd`r osclkbZV ij tk dj vius tkfr ls lcaf/kr vkj{k.k Js.kh dk irk yxkus ds i’pkr gh vkj{k.k dk nkok gsrq vkj{k.k Js.kh Hkjuk lqfu’p; djsaxsA ”

¶24

5 It is submitted that the Advertisement, in specific and unequivocal terms, specified that rectification in the class/caste category, claimed by the applicant, shall not be allowed under any circumstance. It is also a clear stipulation that in case the reservation category is claimed wrongly by the candidate then the

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.1128 of 2018 dt.11-10-2022 4/6

¶26

candidate is required to be considered as a General Category Candidate. The petitioner, therefore, was not having any opportunity of rectification of the reservation category, claiming which he had submitted his application. It is submitted that reliance placed on the notice dated 22.05.2017 is of no avail for the simple reason that the notice allowed opportunity to all candidates to examine their details as published by the Commission and if there was any error in the details uploaded on the website of the Commission, then only the objection could have been entertained.

¶27

6 Considering the rival submissions, from bare perusal of the Advertisement, this Court would find that the same contained clear and unequivocal stipulation that rectification/modification or correction of the reservation category was impermissible in the process of selection, in any circumstance whatsoever. The same is a uniform criteria/stipulation and it is not the petitioner’s case that any correction or modification has been allowed to any other candidate, or that it has not been applied uniformly to all the candidates. In so far as notice dated 22.05.2017 is concerned, submission of the learned Counsel for the Commission appears to be correct. Relevant extract of notice dated 22.05.2017 inviting objection reads as follows:

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.1128 of 2018 dt.11-10-2022 5/6

¶29

“ … vH;FkhZ vius vuqØekad ,oa tUefrfFk dh izfof ‘ V dj lacaf/kr fooj.kh dk voyksdu dj ldrs gSA izdkf’kr fooj.kh ds lca/k esa fdlh rjg dh vkifŸk gksus ij vkWuykbZu vkifŸk ntZ fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkWuykbZu vkifŸk ntZ djus ds laca/k esa foLr`r funZs’k@ekxZn’kZu vH;FkhZ ds fooj.kh okys ist ds mijh fgLls esa vafdr gSA funZs’k@ekxZn’kZu ds vkyksd esa gh vH;FkhZ viuh vkWuykbZu vkifŸk ntZ dj ldrk gSA ”

¶30

7 The opportunity, which was granted by the notice dated 25.05.2017, was for the candidates to examine whether while uploading the details, the Commission has committed any error and, therefore, the scope of the notice was limited to this extent. This notice does not provide any opportunity to any candidate to correct/change the details submitted by him/her at the time of making online application forms. The Court would further add that in view of clear stipulation in Clause 4 (iii) of the Advertisement, there is no basis to contend that the notice dated 22.05.2017 could have allowed any opportunity contrary to the terms of the Advertisement itself.

¶31

8 This Court, for reasons above, is in agreement with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Commission.

¶32

9 No case is made out for invoking the writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶34

M.E.H. /-

¶35

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	20.10.2022
Transmission Date	NA

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.1128 of 2018 dt.11-10-2022 6/6

Sunil Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janeshwar Sharma Vs The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director and Ors.

Ajeet Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kumari Manju Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arjun Roy @ Arjun Kumar Roy Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.