A Division Bench comprising Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Sourendra Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) challenging a Single Judge's order directing consideration of a woman candidate for appointment as Assistant Professor under the SC category.

The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 20/2017 issued by BPSC for recruitment of 74 Assistant Professors in medical colleges and hospitals, including 13 posts reserved for SC candidates, of which five were earmarked for women.

The respondent, Dr. Sushma Sharan, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology under the SC category, submitting a caste certificate dated August 2, 2006, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. After scrutiny of her application and verification of documents, she appeared for an interview on February 28, 2018. However, when the results were published on August 8, 2019, her name did not appear among the selected candidates under the SC category.

BPSC contended that her candidature had been considered under the unreserved category, where she was unsuccessful due to her lower merit position, because the caste certificate submitted by her mentioned her husband's name instead of her father's name.

Aggrieved, she approached the High Court, submitting that she belonged to the SC category by birth, being the daughter of Late Mahim Chand Ram. She also relied upon a subsequent caste certificate dated August 17, 2019, issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, mentioning her father's name.

The Single Judge allowed her writ petition on February 14, 2023, directing the authorities to consider her candidature under the SC category on merit and, if otherwise suitable, offer her appointment from the date similarly placed candidates with lower merit were appointed, subject to the limitations on consequential benefits specified in the judgment.

Challenging this direction, BPSC approached the Division Bench. The High Court identified the principal issue as whether the absence of the candidate's father's name, and the mention of her husband's name instead, justified considering her under the unreserved category.

Answering the question in the negative, the Bench observed:

“…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.”

The Court further considered whether the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer in 2006 could establish her SC status, particularly when she had subsequently obtained another certificate from the Circle Officer.

Referring to the Full Bench decision in Braj Kishore Prasad, the Court observed that the writ court's powers were not fettered and that relief could be granted in deserving cases. Significantly, the Bench held:

“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…”

The Court noted that BPSC had not disputed the respondent's SC status. It further observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer who issued the original certificate was higher in rank than the Circle Officer, and that the respondent had also produced a subsequent certificate mentioning her father's name.

Considering the objective of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the Bench held that the respondent's candidature could not have been rejected under the SC category merely on the basis of non-existent technical requirements.

Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's judgment, the High Court dismissed BPSC's appeal and upheld the direction to consider the respondent for appointment under the SC category.

Appearance:

For the Appellants: Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. P. N. Pathak, Advocate

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