Mosrat Ziya Tara Vs. The State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary Law and Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/76331
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnJul-25-2016
AppellantMosrat Ziya Tara
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary Law and Ors
Excerpt:
1 l.p.a no. 466 of 2015 ­­­­­ against   the   judgment   and   order   dated   15.07.2015   passed   in   w.p(s) no. 1936/2015        ­­­­­  mosrat ziya tara, daughter of ziyauddin md. shoib, resident of  mohalla­chaprasi tola, p.o., p.s. & district­godda  ... ... appellant versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the secretary (law), having its  office at project bhawan, p.o. & p.s. dhurwa, district ranchi 2.   secretary,   personnel   and   administrative   reforms   having   its  office at nepal house, p.o. & p.s. doranda, district ranchi 3. jharkhand high court through its registrar general having its  office at doranda, p.o. & p.s. doranda, district ranchi 4.   jharkhand  .....
Judgment:

1 L.P.A No. 466 of 2015 ­­­­­ Against   the   judgment   and   order   dated   15.07.2015   passed   in   W.P(S) No. 1936/2015        ­­­­­  Mosrat Ziya Tara, daughter of Ziyauddin Md. Shoib, resident of  Mohalla­Chaprasi Tola, P.O., P.S. & District­Godda  ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary (Law), having its  office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2.   Secretary,   Personnel   and   Administrative   Reforms   having   its  office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 3. Jharkhand High Court through its Registrar General having its  office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 4.   Jharkhand   Public   Service   Commission   through   its   Chairman  having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 5.   Chanchal   Kumar,   son   of   Dakhneshwar   Kumar,   resident   of  Lakdhaka, P.O. & P.S. Katrasgarh, District­Dhanbad ... ...  Respondents              ­­­­­­­    For the Appellant        : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Priyadarshi, Advocate : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate   For the State          : Mr. L. C. N. Shahadeo, G.P. IV   Mr. S. K. Gautam, J.C to G.P IV For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. A. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate   Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Advocate For the Respondent­JPSC      : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate  ­­­­­ PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR   ­­­­­ th  CAV on:    28.06.2016                 Pronounced on : 25   .07.2016     Per Virender Singh, C.J.

Appellant was the writ petitioner. She sought quashing  of   the   appointment   of   respondent   No.5   as   Civil   Judge   (Junior  Division)   2015   Batch   under   BC­I   Category   asserting   that   his  appointment was illegal and has been extended undue benefit by  Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission  2 by   allowing   him   to   be   interviewed   as   BC­I   Category   Candidate  whereas he was BC­II Candidate and cleared his preliminary and  Mains Examination in that category only. After loosing her battle  in the Writ Court for a direction to the respondents for inclusion of  her name as successful candidate in the merit list in BC­I Category,  she has now preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal, which is  at Admission stage. We with the consent of learned counsel for  both the sides, take it on Board for its final disposal.

2. Admit. 3.  The   process   of   appointment   of   Civil   Judge   (Junior  Division)   was   initiated   by   the   Department   of   Personnel,  Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand  by   sending   requisition   to   the   Jharkhand   Public   Service  Commission   (JPSC),   vide   letter   no.   4118   dated   13.05.2013,  pursuant thereto, Advertisement No. 04/2013 was issued by JPSC  inviting applications for appointment on 116 posts of Civil Judge  (Junior Division). The appellant submitted her application under  BC­I   category   and   respondent   no.   5   submitted   his   application  under BC­II category. Both were issued admit cards under their  respective categories and they appeared in P.T. examination, which  was held on 27.04.2014. In the result of P.T. examination which  was published on 26.05.2014, the respondent no. 5 was declared  successful under BC­II category. The appellant when noticed from  the result published on the website of JPSC that the cut­off marks  for BC­I category was 46 whereas, she had obtained 72 marks in  P.T.   examination,   upon   her   enquiry   from   the   JPSC   she   was  informed that she was treated as a General category candidate.  She   then   submitted   a   representation   on   04.06.2014   before   the  Controller   of   Examination   for   declaring   her   result   under   BC­I  category however, it was rejected on 16.06.2014, in terms of the  advertisement and she was treated as General category candidate.  Constrained,   the   appellant   approached   this   Court   in   W.P.(S) No. 2826 of 2014 seeking a direction upon the respondent­JPSC to  3 permit   her   to   appear   in   the   Mains   examination   for   Civil   Judge  (Junior Division). The writ petition was allowed vide order dated  07.07.2014   and   the   appellant   was   permitted   to   appear   in   the  Mains   examination   as   BC­I   candidate   which   was   held   on  19.07.2014. Both the appellant as well as the respondent no. 5  were   declared   successful   in   the   Mains   examination   in   their  respective categories and they were directed to appear before the  Interview Board. The respondent no. 5 appeared for interview on  24.01.2015 and the appellant was interviewed on 25.01.2015. In  the meantime, the appellant received notice in L.P.A. No. 311 of  2014   which   was   filed   by   JPSC   challenging   the   order   passed   in W.P.(S) No. 2826 of 2014. The Letters Patent Appeal was finally  disposed   of   on   the   statement   made   on  behalf  of  JPSC   that  the  appellant did not make the final selection list. The final selection  list was put on website of JPSC on 13.02.2015, from where the  appellant could gather that the last selected candidate under BC­II  candidate had secured 267 marks whereas, the respondent no. 5  had secured only 250 marks. However, the respondent no. 5 was  declared   successful   under   BC­I   category,   for   which   the   cut­off  marks was 239. Alleging illegality in preparation of the final result  and   asserting   that   the   respondent   no.   5   has   been  adjusted/selected   under   BC­I   category   by   giving   extra­ordinary  benefit   against   the   law,   the   appellant   approached   this   Court   in W.P.(S) No. 1936 of 2015.  4. The   respondent­JPSC   opposed   the   writ   petition   by  filing counter­affidavit. It was pleaded that the writ petitioner did  not   submit   her   caste   certificate   in   “prescribed   proforma”   along  with   the   application   form   for   claiming   reservation   under   BC­I  category and the caste certificate submitted by her was valid for  appointment on the posts under Government of India and not for  present examination and as such, her candidature was considered  under General category.  4 5. The   respondent   no.   5   was   impleaded   as   a party­respondent   in   the   writ   proceeding   vide   order   dated  22.05.2015.   He   has   also   contested   the   writ   petition   by   filing   a  separate counter­affidavit. The respondent no. 5 took a stand that  on the date of interview i.e. on 24.01.2015, he appeared before  the competent authority for verification of original documents and  during verification when it was detected that the caste certificate  submitted by him does not specifically indicate to which category  he belongs viz; BC­I or BC­II and upon verification when it was  confirmed   that   he   belongs   to   BC­I   category,   he   submitted   the  application   for   permission  to  appear   in  the   interview  as  a  BC­I  candidate. Denying the allegations that due to his selection, the  appellant was denied appointment, respondent no. 5 asserted that  he   has   secured   250   marks   whereas,   cut­off   marks   for   BC­I  candidates was 239. It was pleaded that mere confirmation of the  fact by the JPSC or rectification of mistake cannot be said to be an  illegality   on   the   part   of   JPSC.   It   was   further   pleaded   that   no  illegality   was   committed   by   JPSC   and   only   a   bonafide   and  inadvertent   error   committed   by   the   answering   respondent  (Respondent No.5) was rectified by the JPSC, as soon as, the same  was brought to its notice.

6. The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating that  the   caste   certificate   submitted   by   respondent   no.   5   is   not   in  “Prapatra­K”   which   is   required   under   the   advertisement   and  therefore,   it   should   not   have   been   accepted   by   JPSC.   Claiming  serious prejudice caused to several other candidates besides the  appellant, it was pleaded that change of category of respondent  no. 5 smacks of malafide and arbitrariness.  7.  Contention of the Appellant : (i)   The   respondent   no.   5   gave   a   false   declaration,   in  consequence thereof his application form was liable to  be rejected, in terms of the advertisement. 5 (ii)   The   respondent   no.   5   has   taken   a   false   plea   in   his  application dated 24.01.2015 which dis­entitles him for  any equitable relief. (iii) Change  of category from BC­II to BC­I of respondent no. 5 is arbitrary, illegal and malafide and it amounts to  fraud.  (iv)   The   Controller   of   Examination   has   no   authority   to  permit change in category of respondent no. 5 that too  on the date of interview itself.  (v)  The learned Writ Court committed error in ignoring the  apparent   illegality   committed   by   the   Controller   of  Examination.  (vi)   The   learned   Writ   Court   erred   in  law   in   rejecting   the  challenge  to appointment  of  respondent  no. 5 on  the  ground that the appellant herself has failed to qualify  under BC­I category.  8. Contention of Respondent – JPSC : (i)  No   illegality   was   committed   by   the   Controller   of  Examination and in fact, the decision of the Controller  of Examination has been approved by the Commission.  (ii) No   new   document   was   accepted   by   the   Commission  and only a mistake committed by respondent no. 5 has  been corrected.    (iii)   The   candidature   of   the   appellant   was   liable   to   be  rejected on the ground that requisite caste certificate in  prescribed proforma was not submitted by her.  (iv) No illegality has been committed during the process of  selection   which   was   transparent   and non­discriminatory.  9. Contention of Respondent No. 5 : (i) It is not denied that respondent no. 5 belongs to BC­I  category   and   while   so,   his   selection   under   the   said  6 category cannot be faulted.  (ii)   The   Commission   has   permitted   respondent   no.   5   to  correct   the   mistake   which   was   inadvertent   and   the  declaration by a candidate is not always conclusive.  (iii)   The   caste   certificate   can   be   accepted   even   after   the cut­off date and such a practice would be in consonance  with the reservation policy of the Government.  (iv) Order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 1936 of  2015 is binding on the Commission and, if a benefit can  be   extended   to   the   appellant,   there   is   no   illegality   if  such a benefit has been extended to respondent no. 5. DISCUSSION :

10. Re: Misrepresentation/False Declaration Relying   on   a   decision   in  “A.P.   Public   Service   Commission   Vs.   Koneti   Venkateswarulu   &   Ors.”  reported   in  (2005) 7 SCC 177, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for  the   appellant   contended  that   JPSC  acted illegally  in  the  matter  and   accepted   the   application   form   of   respondent   no.   5   which  suffers from misrepresentation and contains a false declaration by  the   candidate.   Per   contra,   Mr.   Anil   Kumar   Sinha,   the   learned  Senior   Counsel   for   respondent   no.   5   submitted   that   merely  because   respondent  no. 5 mistakenly  marked the  wrong box  in  caste category that would not change the fact that he belongs to  “Kumhar” caste and since it is not disputed that he belongs to the  said   caste,   respondent   no.   5   cannot   be   held   guilty   of  misrepresentation or false declaration.  11. It   is  not  in  dispute  that  the  appellant  submitted her  application under BC­I category and the respondent no. 5 applied  under   BC­II   category.   The   relevant   Column   4(ka)   in   the  application form submitted by both the candidates bears testimony  to   this   fact.   The   appellant   along   with   her   application   attached  7 OBC caste certificate besides, educational qualification certificate  and   domicile   certificate.   The   OBC   certificate   submitted   by   the  appellant   was   issued   by   the   Sub­Divisional   Officer,   Godda   on  06.01.2014   affirming   that   the   appellant   belongs   to   Momin  community.   The   said   certificate   is   in   a   printed   proforma   which  mentions 19 Government Resolutions Published in the Gazette of  India Extra­ordinary [APPENDIX­IV]. The caste certificate issued  to   the   appellant   declares   that   she   does   not   belong   to   the  persons/sections   (Creamy   Layer)   mentioned   in   Column­3   of  Schedule   to   different   OMs   issued   by  Government   of   India.   The  respondent   no.   5   applied   under   BC­II   category   by   marking  relevant box in Column­4(ka) of the application form. He has also  submitted   caste   and   domicile   certificates   besides,   other  certificates. The caste certificate dated 23.05.2012 issued by the  Executive  Magistrate, Dhanbad Sub­Division declares him under  Most Backward Caste (vR; ar fiNM +k ox Z ). His sub­caste has been  mentioned as “Kumhar”. Neither the advertisement nor any other  material produced on record mentions Most Backward Caste as a  reserved category under Advertisement No. 04/2013. The list of  114   successful   candidates   forwarded   to   the   Government   of  Jharkhand by the JPSC also discloses only four reserved category  viz; SC, ST, BC­I and    BC­II.  12. General information/instruction under Clause 16(ii) in  Advertisement No. 04/2013 cautioned the candidates; in case the  application form is not correctly filled up, it shall be rejected and  no   representation   in   this   regard   shall   be   entertained. Clause   16(iii)   stipulates   that   the   caste   certificate   issued   by   the  authority lower in rank to the Sub­Divisional Officer is not valid.  Relevant extracts from Clause­16 are reproduced below:

16. lkekU; tkudkjh%& (i) --------------------------------------------------------------------- (ii) vko sn u i= fuc af /kr Mkd }kjk “ijh{kk fu; a= d ”  8 >kj[k.M yk sd l so k vk;k sx ] ld q Zy j jk sM ] jk ap h&834001 d s ir s ij bl i zd kj Hk st uk l qf uf'pr dj s a fd fnuk ad &06-01-2014 dk s l a/ ;k 5-00 ct s rd vo'; i zk Ir gk s tk; sA fyQkQk d s mij cM+ s ,o a Li"V v{kjk s a e s a “Civil   Judge   (Junior  Division) g sr q vko sn u ” vo'; v af dr dj s aA Hkjk g qv k vko sn u fu ac f/kr Mkd l s i z sf "kr dju s d s i wo Z ;g l qf uf'pr gk s a y s a fd vkiu s vko sn u i= d s lHkh dkW y e lgh&lgh Hkjk g S rFkk lHkh 'k S{ kf.kd i ze k.k&i=k s a (tUe frfFk i ze k.k i= lfgr ) tkfr i ze k.k i= ,o a vf/koDrk d s :i e s a fuc a/ ku i ze k.k&i= dh Nk;k i zf r jktif=r inkf/kdkjh l s vfHki ze kf.kr djkdj l ay Xu fd;k x;k gS vU;Fkk vko sn u vLohd `r dj fn; s tk; s ax s rFkk ckn e s a fdlh i zd kj d s vu qj k s/ k Lohdkj ugh a gk s ax sA (iii) vkj{k.k dk ykHk d so y >kj[k.M jkT; d s LFkk;h fuoklh dk s >kj[k.kM jkT; d s l{ke Lrj d s inkf/kdkjh vFkk Zr vu qe .My inkf/kdkjh l s U; wu Lrj d s inkf/kdkjh }kjk fux Zr tkfr i ze k.k i= ekU; ugh a gk sx kA >kj[k.M jkT; d s ckgj d s tkfr i ze k.k i= /kkjd vH;Fkh Z d s fy, vkj{k.k d s ykHk g sr q fd;k x;k nkok vu qe kU; ugh a gk sx kA (iv) >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk ykx w v?kru vkj{k.k l ac a/ kh fu;e i zH kkoh gk s a x sA vU; jkT;k s a ,o a d sU n z' kkflr i zn s' kk s a d s mEehnokj pkg s o s fdlh Hkh tkfr d s gk s a] mUg s a vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugh a fey sx kA >kj[k.M jkT; ds mEehnokj] tk s vu ql wf pr tkfr@tutkfr@fiNM+ k ox Z& 1@fiNM+ k ox Z& 11 d s g S a] dk s vkj{k.k dk ykHk i zk Ir dju s d s fy, >kj[k.M jkT;Urx Zr vu qe .My inkf/kdkjh l s U; wu Lrj d s inkf/kdkjh }kjk fux Zr tkfr i ze k.k i= ekU; ugh a gk sx kA >kj[k.M jkT; d s xBu d s ckn dk fu/kk Zf jr fofgr i zi =&1 vFkok i zi =&11 e s a fux Zr tkfr i ze k.k i= dh Nk;k&i zf r jktif=r inkf/kdkjh l s vfHki ze kf.kr djkdj vko sn u i= d s lkFk l ay Xu djuk vfuok; Z gk sx kA fu/kk Zf jr fofgr i zi =&1 vFkok i zi =&11 vk;k sx ds o so lkbV www.jpsc.gov.in ij miyC/k jg sx kA English Translation 16. General Information:­ (i)  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (ii) The candidates must ensure that application form sent  through   registered   post   at   the   address   “Examination  Controller”, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular  Road,   Ranchi­834001,   is   received   by   5:00   O’clock   in   the  evening of 06.01.2014. On the envelope “Application for the  9 Civil Judge (Junior Division)” must be written in bold and  clear   letters.   Before   sending   duly   filled   application   form  through   registered   post,   it   must   be   ensured   that     all   the  columns   of   application   form  have  been   correctly   filled   up  and   photocopies   of   all   educational   certificates   (including  date   of   birth   certificate),   caste   certificate   and   enrollment  certificate as an advocate, after getting it duly attested by a  Gazetted Officer have been attached, otherwise application  will be rejected and no  request for re­consideration shall be  entertained later on. (iii) The benefit of reservation to the permanent residents of  the State of Jharkhand shall not be admissible on the basis  of caste certificate issued by an officer below the rank of the  competent   authority   of   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   i.e.,   Sub­ Divisional Officer. The claim for benefit of the reservation to  the candidates holding caste certificate outside the State of  Jharkhand shall not be admissible.  (iv) The latest Rules enforced by Government of Jharkhand  relating  to reservation  shall be  applicable.  The  candidates  belonging to other States and Union territories, whichever  caste   they   belong   to,   shall   not   be   given   the   benefit   of  reservation. The candidates of the State of Jharkhand, who  belong to Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe/ Backward Caste­ I/Backward   Caste­II,   for   taking   benefit   of   reservation,   the  caste certificate issued by an officer below the rank of Sub­ Divisional   Officer   of   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   shall   not   be  admissible. It shall be mandatory to enclose copy of caste  certificate   issued   in   the   prescribed   Format­I   or   Format­II  which   was   laid   down   after   the   formation   of   the   State   of  Jharkhand after getting it duly attested by a Gazetted Officer  along with the application form. The prescribed Format­I or  Format­II   shall   remain   available   at   the   website   of   the  Commission www.jpsc.gov.in.

13. Not only that, the candidates were required to give a  declaration that the informations furnished by them are true and  correct. In fact, the application form itself contained declaration  which reads as under: ?kk s" k.kk&i= 1- e S a ,rn~ }kjk ?kk s" k.kk djrk@djrh g w ¡ fd u Sf rd uhprk (Moral   turpitude) l s l ac af /kr fdlh vkijkf/kd ekey s e s a e S a l af yIr ugh a g w ¡ ;k l ac af /kr ugh a g w ¡A2 e S a ?kk s" k.kk djrk@djrh g w ¡ fd tgk ¡ rd e sj h tkudkjh vk Sj fo'okl g S bl vko sn u e s a fn, x, lHkh fooj.kh lgh ,o a lR; g S vk Sj e S a vg Zr k/kkjh g w ¡A3 e S au s vko sn u i= d s fun s Z' kk s a dk s /;kui wo Zd i<+ fy;k g S vk Sj e S a ,rn~ }kjk ?kk s" k.kk djrk@djrh 10 g w ¡ fd e S a rnu q: i fu/kk Zf jr vk; q lhek] 'k S{ kf.kd ;k sX ;rk] vkj{k.k vkfn l s lEc) ik=rk dh lHkh 'krk s Z a dk s i wj k djrk@djrh g w ¡A4 e S a ;g Hkh ?kk s" k.kk djrk@djrh g w ¡ fd e S a bl ckr l s voxr g w ¡ fd e sj s }kjk mi; q ZD r nh xb Z fdlh Hkh l wp uk d s xyr ;k vlR; ik; s tku s ij e sj h vH;fFk Zr rk jn~ n gk s tk,xh pkg s e sj k p;u ijh{kk d s vk/kkj ij D;k s a u gk s x;k gk sA LFkku % fnuk ad % vko sn d dk gLrk{kj English Translation Declaration 1. I hereby declare that I am not involved in or related  with any criminal case involving moral turpitude.

2. I hereby declare that all the informations given in this  application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge  and belief and I am eligible.

3. I   have   carefully   read   the   instructions   given   in   the  application   form   and   I   hereby   declare   that   I   accordingly  fulfill   all   the   conditions   of   eligibility   regarding   prescribed  age limit, educational qualification, reservation etc.

4. I also hereby declare that I am aware of this fact that  in   the   event   of   any   information   being   found   false   or  incorrect, my candidature shall be cancelled despite the fact  that   my   selection   has   been   made   on   the   basis   of  examination.  Place: Date:     Signature of the applicant  14. In   “A.P.   Public   Service   Commission”  (supra),   the  candidates   were   required   to   furnish   information   as   to   previous  employment in column 11 and a declaration in the format vide  Annexure­III affirming that he/she is not working elsewhere was  required to be supplied by an applicant. The advertisement issued  by   the   A.P.   Public   Service   Commission   specifically   informed   the  candidates   that   any   false/wrong   information   or   suppression   of  material   information   would   lead   to   cancellation   of   the  candidature.   However,   the   candidate   had   left   column   11  pertaining to previous employment blank and he declared that he  was   not   working   in   any   Government   Department   /   Quasi­ 11 Government / Public sector / Private sector. Subsequently, it was  detected   that   the   applicant   was   employed   and   working   as   a  Teacher. The plea taken by him before the Writ Court was that he  inadvertently filled up and signed Annexure­III of the application  form   which   was   intended   only   for   the   candidates   seeking   fee  exemption in case of unemployed youth in the age group of 18­35  and   thus,   the   declaration   was   inconsequential.   The   Hon'ble  Supreme Court dealt with the plea of inadvertence thus; 7.  “...........We   are   also   unable   to   accept   the  contention that it was inadvertence which led the  first respondent to leave the particulars in column  11   blank   and   make   the   declaration   of   non­ employment in Annexure III to the application. The  application   was   filled   on   24­7­1999,   the  examination   was   held   on   24­10­1999,   and   the  interview call was given on 31­1­2000. At no point  of   time   did   the   first   respondent   inform   the  appellant Commission that there was a bona fide  mistake by him in filling up the application form,  or that there was inadvertence on his part in doing  so.   It   is   only   when   the   appellant   Commission  discovered by itself that there was suppressio veri  and   suggestio   falsi   on   the   part   of   the   first  respondent in the application that the respondent  came   forward   with   an   excuse   that   it  was   due  to  inadvertence. That there has been suppressio veri  and   suggestio   falsi   is   incontrovertible.   The  explanation   that   it   was   irrelevant   or   emanated  from   inadvertence,   is   unacceptable.   In   our   view,  the appellant was justified in relying upon the ratio  of   Kendriya   Vidyalaya   Sangathan   and   contending  that a person who indulges in such suppressio veri  and   suggestio   falsi   and   obtains   employment   by  false   pretence   does   not   deserve   any   public  employment...........”

15. In “Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram   Ratan Yadav”, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437, the appointee filled  up the attestation form suppressing the information regarding his  prosecution/conviction for an offence and whether any case was  pending   against   him   in   any   court   at   the   time   of   filling   up   the  attestation form. He also certified that the information given by  him   was   correct   and   complete   to   the   best   of   his   knowledge,  although a criminal case against him was pending at that time.  12 The   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   dealt   with   the   issue   in   paragraph no. 12 of the reported judgment, in these words; 12.   “The   object   of   requiring   information   in  columns   12   and   13   of   the   attestation   form   and  certification   thereafter   by   the   candidate   was   to  ascertain and verify the character and antecedents  to   judge   his   suitability   to   continue   in   service.   A  candidate having suppressed material information  and/or giving false information cannot claim right  to continue in service. The employer having regard  to   the   nature   of   the   employment   and   all   other  aspects   had   the   discretion   to   terminate   his  services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of  the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking  information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to  find out either the nature or gravity of the offence  or   the   result   of   a   criminal   case   ultimately.   The  information in the said columns was sought with a  view to judge the character and antecedents of the  respondent to continue in service or not. The High  Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of  the   matter.   It   went   wrong   in   saying   that   the  criminal   case   had   been   subsequently   withdrawn  and that the offences, in which the respondent was  alleged   to   have   been   involved,   were   also   not   of  serious nature. In the present case the respondent  was   to   serve   as   a   Physical   Education   Teacher   in  Kendriya   Vidyalaya.   The   character,   conduct   and  antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on  the minds of the students of impressionable age.  The   appellants   having   considered   all   the   aspects  passed   the   order   of   dismissal   of   the   respondent  from service. The Tribunal after due consideration  rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the  order   of   dismissal   passed   by   the   appellants.   The  High   Court   was   clearly   in   error   in   upsetting   the  order  of  the Tribunal.  The  High  Court was  again  not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the  case   by   the   State   Government   and   that   the   case  was not of a serious nature to set aside the order  of   the   Tribunal   on   that   ground   as   well.   The  respondent   accepted   the   offer   of   appointment  subject   to   the   terms   and   conditions   mentioned  therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said  memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept  the   respondent   informed   that   the   suppression   of  any   information   may   lead   to   dismissal   from  service. In the attestation form, the respondent has  certified   that   the   information   given   by   him   is  correct and complete to the best of his knowledge  and belief; if he could not understand the contents  of   columns   12   and   13,   he   could   not   certify   so.  Having certified that the information given by him  is   correct   and   complete,   his   version   cannot   be  accepted.   The   order   of   termination   of   services  13 clearly   shows   that   there   has   been   due  consideration of various aspects. In this view, the  argument   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the  respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum,  the   termination   of   service   was   not   automatic,  cannot be accepted.”

16. The appellant in the application form declared herself  as   BC­I   category   candidate   and   she   has   submitted   OBC   caste  certificate, a category which has subsequently been subdivided in  BC­I and BC­II. During the course of argument, counsel for the  parties agreed that BC­I and BC­II are under OBC. The respondent  no. 5 declared himself under BC­II category and he submitted a  caste   certificate   of   MBC.   Only   stand   taken   by   the respondent­JPSC   in   the   counter­affidavit   filed   before   the   Writ  Court is that the caste certificate submitted by the appellant was  not in “proper format” whereas, the caste certificate furnished by  respondent no. 5 was gleeingly accepted by JPSC.  17. At   this   juncture,   the   precise   question   crops   up   is,  whether   a  candidate  who  belongs to  BC­I category, submits  his  application under BC­II category and furnishes a caste certificate  of MBC, is guilty of misrepresentation and false declaration or not,  when he affirms that all the informations disclosed by him in the  application   form   are   true   and   correct.   The   declaration   of   the  appellant in the application form cannot be said to be false. Of  course, her caste certificate is not in proper format, the effect of  which   would   be   discussed   at   a   later   stage,   however,   format   of  caste certificate would not invite a conclusion of misrepresentation  or false declaration. However, when the candidature of respondent  no. 5 is examined in the light of Clause­16 to the advertisement  and the declaration given by him, it must be held that he gave a  false declaration in his application form.  18. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5 urged  that the issue of misrepresentation and false declaration was not  raised   in   the   writ   petition   and   pleadings   on   this   issue   is   quite  14 silent.   This   contention   is   an   argument   in   desperation.  The  conditions/instructions   to   the   candidates   under   Advertisement No.   04/2013   and   the   declaration   which   forms   part   of   the  application form are not the issues entirely alien to the present  proceeding. In the present case, when the respondent­JPSC as well  as respondent no. 5 challenged the candidature of the appellant  under   BC­I   category   before   the   Writ   Court,   it   is   open   to   the  appellant   to   raise   an   issue   which   is   a   pure   question   of   law.   A  selection   process   must   proceed   on   the   declared   guidelines   is  imperative   for rule of law and the  conditions mentioned in  the  Advertisement/Brochure must be adhered to, is the law declared  by Supreme Court. The appellant has pleaded at every stage that  the application form of respondent no. 5 was liable to be rejected  at   the   initial   stage   itself.   Power   of   the   Letters   Patent   Court   is  undoubtedly wider than power under Section 100 C.P.C. A Letters  Patent Appeal is an appeal both on facts as well as on law and the  Letters   Patent   Court   can   examine   the   facts   of   the   case   afresh.  [Smt. Asha Devi Vs. Dukhi Sao & Anr.” (1974) 2 SCC 492] 19. The learned counsel for the JPSC contended that the  application   of   appellant   was   also   liable   to   be   rejected   for   the  reason that she did not submit caste certificate in “proper format”.  The appellant declared herself a BC­I category and she submitted  a caste certificate declaring her belonging to Momin community  not   within   the   Creamy   Layer.   By   no   stretch   of   imagination   the  declaration   given   by   the   appellant   can   be   said   to   be   a   false  declaration.   Moreover,   the   appellant   appeared   in   the   Mains  examination by the order of the Writ Court and in any case her  challenge   to   the   appointment   of   respondent   no.   5   cannot   be  countered by throwing a challenge to her candidature.  20. Re: Jurisdiction of Controller of Examination: The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   vehemently  contended that there is no express provision authorizing either the  15 Commission or Controller of Examination to change the category  of a candidate. The learned counsel for the JPSC has also failed to  produce   any   rule/circular   vesting   the   Commission/Controller   of  Examination   with  such   powers.  The   learned  Senior   Counsel  for  respondent   no.   5   however,  contended  that  there   is  no  illegality  committed by   Controller of Examination, if a mistake has been  permitted to be corrected. Referring to order passed in W.P.(S) No.  2826   of   2014,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   submitted   that   the  direction issued by the Writ Court not to take a super­technical  view   while   examining   the   caste   certificate   is   binding   on   the  Commission   and   if   in   adherence   to   the   Writ   Court’s   order,   the  Controller of Examination permitted respondent no. 5 to appear in  the   interview   as   a   BC­I   candidate,   he   has   not   committed   any  illegality.  21. The   guidelines/instructions   in   Advertisement No. 04/2013 do not disclose a power either in the Commission or  to   Controller   of   Examination   to  change   the   caste   category   of   a  candidate   at   the   fag   end   of   the   selection   process.  An   authority  exercises   jurisdiction   which   can   either   be   statutory   or   inherent.  Appointments to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil  Judge   (Senior   Division)  are  regulated under  Jharkhand Judicial  Service   (Recruitment)   Rules,   2004   which   has   been   framed   in  exercise of the powers conferred by Article 234 read with Article  309 of the Constitution of India, after consultation with the High  Court of Jharkhand. Under Rule 4, the Commission shall notify the  number  of  vacancies and it   shall  undertake   the   entire   selection  process, in consultation with the High Court. Rule 7 provides that  whether it is desirable to have a Preliminary Written Entrance Test  or not, would be a decision of the High Court. The High Court  may   also   prescribe   the   syllabi   for   the   Preliminary   Test   and   the  Mains examination and the Commission, in consultation with the  High Court, may fix the minimum qualifying marks. Under Rule 8,  the   Commission   shall   invite   applications   from   the   intending  16 candidates and on receipt of the applications process the same.  The declaration in the application form is almost a reproduction of  Rule 11 which provides that candidature of a candidate may be  cancelled on  the ground of misrepresentation and/or furnishing  false   information   and   if   a   candidate   has   been   appointed,   such  appointment   shall   be   liable   to   immediate   termination.   The  Jharkhand   Judicial   Service   (Recruitment)   Rules,   2004   neither  provides nor contemplates a power in the Commission to change  caste category of a candidate irrespective of a declaration made by  the candidate in the application form.  22. During the course of hearing, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the  learned counsel for JPSC produced photocopy of the proceeding of  the   Commission,   to   submit   that   the   decision   of   Controller   of  Examination has been approved by the Commission. Factually, the  submission   does   not   appear   to   be   correct.   The   Controller   of  Examination   prepared   a   note­sheet   on   28.01.2015   which   was  addressed   to   the   Chairman,   JPSC.   Paragraph   no.   16   of   the note­sheet   merely   mentions   that   on   the   application   of   the  candidate having Roll No. 41320913, he was selected under BC­I  category. The proceeding of the Commission records:  “Randomly   selected   the   following   Roll   Numbers  (Mains) and compared with the assessment chart in  the   grade­sheet   (rank­wise)   got   authenticated   by  the Asst. Programmer/Dy. Controller of Examination  and   Controller   of   Examination   and   found   correct.  Result may be published.”  23. The aforesaid proceeding does not reflect approval of  the Commission to change of category of respondent no. 5, and  even if it is assumed that the decision of Controller of Examination  has been approved by the Commission, it would not validate the  illegal change of caste category of respondent no. 5 from BC­II to  BC­I.  As noticed above, neither it was pleaded nor was any law  brought   to   the   notice   of   the   Court   which   sanctions   change   of  category   of   a   candidate   appearing   in   the   examination   of   Civil  Judge (Junior Division) by the Commission. To a pointed query to  17 Mr.   Piprawall,   whether   the   Commission   has   adopted   a   similar  procedure in any other case, the learned counsel, on instruction  from   Mr.   A.K.   Mishra,   the   Law   Officer   who   was   present   in   the  Court,   submitted   that   there   is   no   other   instance   of   change   of  category   of   a   candidate   at   the   time   of   interview.   Though,   this  question   is   not   significant   for   examining   the   jurisdiction   of  Controller   of   Examination/Commission,   it   assumes   significance  when bonafide of Controller of Examination is to be examined.  22. Obviously,   the   Controller   of   Examination   cannot  exercise   any   other   power   which   the   Commission   has   not   been  given. At every stage of appointment consultation with the High  Court is mandatory. The decision of the Controller of Examination  to   permit   respondent   no.   5   to   appear   in   interview   as   a   BC­I  candidate was not approved by the High Court and in fact, this  fact was not even brought to the notice of the High Court.  The  proceeding   dated   28.01.2015   forwarded   by   the   Controller   of  Examination   specifically   records   order   of   the   High   Court   and  instruction   issued   by   the   Registrar   General   in   respect   of   two  candidates having Roll Nos. 41321311 and 41321799 who were  provisionally permitted to appear for interview.  24. Taking   a   leaf   from   the   decision   in   “Ram   Kumar   Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr.”  reported in  (2016) 4 SCC  754,  the learned Senior Counsel for  respondent no. 5  next contended  that the respondent no. 5 who  admittedly belongs to BC­I category would have furnished a copy  of   the   caste   certificate   at   any   stage   and   while   so,   there   is   no  illegality   in   the   permission   granted   by   the   Controller   of  Examination to the respondent no. 5 to appear in the interview  under the said category.  25. In this context it is useful to reproduce what Earl of  Halsbury,   L.C.   observed   in   “Quinn   Vs.   Leathem”,  reported   in  1901 AC 495:

18. “Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood  and   what   was   decided   therein,   there   are   two  observations of a general character which I wish to  make, and one is to repeat what I have very often  said before, that every judgment must be read as  applicable   to   the   particular   facts   proved,   or  assumed to be proved, since the generality of the  expressions   which   may   be   found   there   are   not  intended   to be  expositions   of the whole  law,  but  governed   and   qualified   by   the   particular   facts   of  the case in which such expressions are to be found.  The   other   is   that   a   case   is   only   an   authority   for  what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can  be   quoted   for   a   proposition   that   may   seem   to  follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning  assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code,  whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the  law is not always logical at all.”  26. More   than   half   a   century   thereafter,   Lord   Morris  explained   the   above   principle   more   precisely   in   “British   Rlys.   Board Vs. Herrington”, reported in (1972) 1 All ER 749 in these  words: “There is  always  peril in  treating the words  of a  speech or a judgment as though they were words  in   a   legislative   enactment,   and   it   is   to   be  remembered   that  judicial   utterances   are  made   in  the setting of the facts of a particular case.”  27. A   similar   approach   is   found   running   through   the  judicial pronouncements in India also. In “Ambica Quarry Works   Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (1987) 1 SCC 213, it has been  held   that,   “the   ratio   of   any   decision   must   be   understood   in   the   background of the facts of that case”.  A similar view is echoed in  “Bhavnagar   University   Vs.   Palitana   Sugar   Mill   (P)   Ltd.”  reported   in  (2003)   2   SCC   111,   wherein   the   Hon'ble   Supreme  Court has observed thus;  “It   is   also   well   settled   that   a   little   difference   in  facts   or   additional   facts   may   make   a   lot   of  difference in the precedential value of a decision.”  28. Before adverting to “Ram Kumar Gijroya's Case”, the  decision   in   “Tej   Pal   Singh   &   Ors.   Vs.   Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi”  reported   in  120   (2005)   DLT   117  needs   to   be   noticed  19 because this case has been referred to in “Ram Kumar Gijroya”   (Supra). In “Tej Pal Singh's Case”, the grievance of the petitioners  was   that   the   respondents   therein   had   declined   to   consider   the  caste certificate submitted after the cut­off date i.e., 30.06.1998. It  was pleaded by the petitioners that the caste certificate was not  issued by NCTD after 30.06.1998 and it was produced by them at  the time of verification of documents by Board. The learned Single  Judge held that if a person belongs to Schedule Caste, he is so by  birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other  event   happening   at   a   latter   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. The view taken in “Tej Pal Singh”   was reiterated in “Pushpa Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)” ILR 2001   Del   298.   Ram   Kumar   Gijroya's   Case  travelled   up   to   Supreme  Court because a Division Bench of Delhi High Court set­aside the  order passed by the Writ Court directing the respondent to accept  the OBC certificate of the candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court  after noticing the decisions in “Tej Pal Singh Case” and “Pushpa   Case”  held that the decision in  “Pushpa Case”  is in conformity  with   the   decisions   in   “Indra   Sawhney   Vs.   Union   of   India”   reported in  1992 Supp (3) SCC 217  and “Valsamma Paul Vs.   Cochin   University”   (1996)   3   SCC   545.  It   is   apparent   that   the  facts and issues involved in case “Ram Kumar Gijroya”(Supra)  were   entirely   different   from   the   facts   in   the   present   case.   The  precise   issue   involved  in   “Ram  Kumar  Gijroya”  is  indicated  in  paragraph no. 2 of the said decision, which is extracted below:  2.   “The   important   question   of   law   to   be  decided in these appeals is whether a candidate  who appears in an examination under the OBC  category   and   submits   the   certificate   after   the  last   date   mentioned   in   the   advertisement   is  eligible for selection to the post under the OBC  category or not?”

2. 29. The   judgments   relied   by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel  for respondent no. 5 do not lend support to his case. In view of  specific stipulation in the advertisement and the declaration in the  application form, the respondent no. 5 cannot wriggle out from  the allegation of making false declaration.   30. The issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel with  reference to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2826 of 2014 directing the  Commission   to  treat   the   appellant   as a BC­I  candidate  and  not  under General category has to be seen in the context of the facts  pleaded   by   the   appellant   that   she   declared   herself   as   a   BC­I  candidate   and   she   submitted   a   certificate   which   mentions   her  caste and declares her not falling under Creamy Layer. The said  certificate   was   issued   by   the   Sub­Divisional   Officer   who   is  authorized   to   issue   caste   certificate   under   the   “Prescribed  Proforma”. The observation of the Writ Court that the Commission  should not take a super­technical view was in the context of the  aforesaid facts. Such observation by the Court would not clothe  the Controller of Examination to change category of a candidate  who appeared in P.T. and Mains examination under BC­II category  to BC­I category.  31. Re: Fraud Mr.   Rajendra   Krishna,   the   learned   counsel   for   the  appellant contended that change in caste category of respondent  no. 5 at the time of interview is a serious irregularity amounting to  fraud   however,   the   learned   Writ   Court   erroneously   rejected   the  said plea on the ground that there is no specific pleading in this  respect. It is contended that at the initial stage, the appellant had  no   specific   information   however,   after   detecting   the   change   in  caste category of respondent no. 5, the appellant approached the  Writ   Court   with   a   prayer   for   an   enquiry   into   the   matter.   The  change in caste category of a candidate cannot be permitted by  21 the Commission/Controller of Examination still, the Controller of  Examination changed the category of respondent no. 5, a manifest  illegality on the face of record.  32. The   Courts   in   India   have   pronounced   that   fraud   is  proved   when   it   is   shown   that   a   false   representation   has   been  made,   knowingly   or   without   belief   in   its   truth.   Suppression   of  material   facts   has   also   been   considered   fraud   on   the   opposite  party   as   well   as   on   the   Court.  [“S.P.   Chengalvaraya   Naidu   (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs. & Ors.” (1994) 1   SCC   1].  Suppressio   Veri   and   Suggestio   Falsi  are   well­recognised  principles which have been referred by the Courts for declining  relief to a litigant. More than a century ago, Edward Coke, Chief  Justice proclaimed, “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or   temporal”.   And   since   then,   this   principle   has   been   adopted   not  only in England where Lord Denning declared in “Lazarus Estates   Ltd. Vs. Beasley” reported in (1956) 1 QB 702; “No judgment of a   Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been   obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything”, but in India also.

33. In   “Meghmala   &   Ors.   Vs.   G.   Narasimha   Reddy   &   Ors.”  reported   in  (2010)   8   SCC   383,  the   Supreme   Court   has  observed thus; 33. “Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud  of   an   egregious   nature   would   vitiate   the   most  solemn proceedings of the courts of justice. Fraud is  an   act   of   deliberate   deception   with   a   design   to  secure something, which is otherwise not due....”

34. The stand taken by respondent no. 5 before the Writ  Court is reflected in the following paragraphs:

8.  That it is stated and submitted that during filling  up of the form published by JPSC, the answering  Respondent inadvertently filled up his category as  BC­II   category   and   his   results   of   the   PT   and   the  Mains examinations were published in accordance  with that, however after receiving a call letter for  the   viva   voce   he   appeared   before   the   concerned  authority on 24.01.2015. It is pertinent to submit  before this Hon’ble Court that on the date of viva  22 voce,   the   candidates   were   to   appear   before   the  concerned   competent   authority   with   all   the  original   documents   vis   a   vis   passing   certificate,  LLB/LLM   certificate,   caste   certificate   etc.   which  were to be verified by the authority.  9. That during the verification /preparation of the  checklist, since the category BC­I or BC­II was not  mentioned   upon   the   caste   certificate   of   the  answering Respondent, it was enquired as to which  category   he   belongs   to   and   upon   enquiry   it   was  found   out   by   the   answering   authority   and   the  candidate during the verification of the documents  that   the   candidate   does   not   belong   to   BC­II  category but infact belongs to BC­I category.  10. That after finding out that he infact belongs to  BC­I category and not BC­II category, the candidate  wrote   an   application   addressing   it   to   the  competent authority of JPSC and apprised him of  the technicality as a result of which and only after  the verification he was permitted to appear in the  viva   voce   as   a   BC­I   candidate   and   therefore   his  result was published under the category of BC­I.  14.   That   in   reply   to   the   statements   made   in  paragraph 3 of the writ petition under reply, it is  stated   and   submitted   that   the   same   are   the  questions   of   law   formulated   by   the   Petitioner  which have no bearing upon the instant case. It is  further   humbly   submitted   that   no   discrimination  has   been   made   against   the   Petitioner   and   no  illegality   has   been   committed   by   the   JPSC   in  publishing the result. Mere confirmation of a fact  by the JPSC or rectification of their mistake cannot  be said to be an illegality on the part of the JPSC.

35. The   original   records   revealed   that   respondent   no.   5  was initially required to appear in  the interview on  16.01.2015  however, he did not appear in the interview on the said date. On  the application submitted by him, the Controller of Examination  passed an order on 22.01.2015 permitting him to appear in the  interview on 24.01.2016. Not only that, on the date of interview  when   it   was   allegedly   detected   that   the   respondent   no.   5   has  “inadvertently” filled up the caste column incorrectly, he submitted  an application for treating him as a candidate under BC­I category  and not under BC­II category and on the same day, the Controller  of Examination permitted him to appear in the interview in the  second   session   of   the   day.   The   application   submitted   by  respondent no. 5 is reproduced below:

23. To, The Controller of Exam Jharkhand Public Service Commission Ranchi Sub:   information regarding wrong entry in the application  form of Civil Judge (Jr. Div)  Respected Sir, Most   humbly   I   would   like   to   submit   that   in  Column   4   of   the   Application   for   C.J.

  (Jr.   Div)   relating   to  declaration of the category of the candidate, I have wrongly  entered in BC II instead of BC I for lack  of understanding on  my part.  I,   therefore,   request   you   approve   for   the  correction  of   above   mistake   and   consider   my   candidature  under   B.C.   I   category   and   allowing   me   to   appear   for   the  viva­voce.  I am enclosing my details.  I shall be highly obliged for this gracious act. Your's Faithfully Date: 24.01.2015 Chanchal Kumar PT Roll no.­41306962        Mains Roll no­41320913   Registration No.­ 13407289 Father's Name­Dakshineswar                Kumar 36. The   specific   stand   taken   by   the   Commission   in   the  counter­affidavit filed in the Writ Court is as under:

40.   “That   it   is   stated   that   on   24.01.2015,   the  respondent no. 5 appeared before the JPSC for his  appearance before the interview board and at the  time   of   verification   of   the   testimonials   of   the  respondent no. 5 it was found that respondent no.  5 has in inadvertently ticked marked in the column  of the application form against BC­II category but  infact   he   belongs   to   BC­I   category   and   had   also  submitted caste certificate of BC­I category with his  application   form   and   after   detecting   the   said  mistake,   respondent   no.   5   filed   a   representation  before the Controller of Examination for correcting  the aforesaid error and to allow him to appear in  the interview as a BC­I category candidate.   That   it   is   stated   that   deponent   after  considering   the   representation   of   the   petitioner,  allowed   the   Respondent   No.   5   to   appear   in  interview as a BC­I category candidate”.

37. To recapitulate, respondent no. 5 declared himself a  BC­II candidate and appeared in the P.T. and Mains examination  as a BC­II candidate. He was declared successful in both P.T. and  24 Mains examinations as BC­II candidate, however, at no point in  time   he   made   a   representation   before   the   Commission   for  rectification   of   the   alleged   mistake   committed   by   him   while  declaring himself as BC­II candidate in the application form. The  contention of respondent no. 5 that he could detect the mistake in  the application form only when it was ascertained by JPSC that he  belongs to the BC­I category, is a blatant lie. The learned counsel  for the appellant has rightly contended that respondent no. 5 has  taken   a   false   plea   in   his   application   dated   24.01.2015   seeking  change in caste category. When the result of P.T. examination was  published, it was known to all that respondent no. 5 has qualified  in BC­II category. Again, when the result of Mains examination  was   published,   respondent   no.   5   was   shortlisted   for   interview  under BC­II category. Can respondent no. 5 feign ignorance and  whether   the   stand   taken   by   him   is   not   an   attempt   by   him   to  mislead the Court? Amid the controversy surrounding the power  of   Controller   of   Examination   to   change   caste   category   of   a  candidate   at   the   time   of   interview,   the   stand   taken   by   the  Controller of Examination is further weakened when the counsel  for   JPSC   conceded   that   in   the   recent   past   there   is   no   other  instance   Controller   of   Examination   permitting   change   in   caste  category   at   the   time   of   interview.   Whether   the   Controller   of  Examination and respondent no. 5 acted in concert or not is really  not relevant. What is relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the  legality   of   selection   of   respondent   no.   5   is   the   fact   that   the  exercise   of   power   by   Controller   of   Examination   which   is   not  vested   in   him   was   absolutely   uncalled   for   and   wholly  unwarranted.  38. There   is   another   twist   in   the   tale.   While   the  respondent   no.   5   took   a   position   that   he   submitted   caste  certificate   which,   in   the   light   of   notification   dated   18.08.2010  issued   by   the   Government   of   Jharkhand,   establishes   that   he  belongs to BC­I category, this fact was never brought to the notice  25 of the Court that the caste certificate submitted by him is of Most  Backward Caste which is not a reserved category in Advertisement  No. 04/2013. Another significant aspect of the matter which was  not disclosed in the counter­affidavit filed by JPSC is the date of  certificate produced by respondent no. 5 in “proper format”. The  said   certificate   is   dated   11.06.2015   whereas,   the   original  documents of the candidates were to be verified at the time of  interview itself. The recommendation forwarded by JPSC is dated  02.02.2015.   Admittedly,   on   that   day   respondent   no.   5  had   not  produced original caste certificate in “proper format”.

39. The aforesaid events unerringly disclose that neither  respondent   no.   5   nor   Controller   of   Examination   disclosed   all  relevant   and   material   facts   to   the   Court.   It   is   only   after   the  original records were summoned by the Court vide order dated  09.05.2016,   the   falsity   of   plea   taken   by   respondent   no.   5   and  suppression   of   material   facts   by   Controller   of   Examination   and  respondent   no.   5   have   been   exposed.   In  “S.P.   Chengalvaraya   Naidu Case”,  disagreeing with the High Court that “there is no  legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case  and prove it by true evidence”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held  that,   non­production   and   even   non­mentioning   of   the release deed at the trial is tantamount to play fraud on the court.  It was further held that a litigant who approaches the court, is  bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are  relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital documents   in  order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty  of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

40. Undoubtedly, selection of respondent no. 5 is foisted  with   misrepresentation   and   an   attempt   has   also   been   made   to  play fraud upon the Court also.

41. At this stage, it needs to be clarified that even leaving  the issue of fraud aside, there is another important factor which  26 goes against  respondent  no.5. The  chart  produced by the JPSC  indicates that there were 9 posts under BC­I category and 7 posts  for   BC­II   candidates.   The   maximum   marks   obtained   by   the  candidate under BC­I category was 287 and the cut­off marks i.e.,  marks obtained by the candidate last selected in the said category  was 239. The appellant has secured 238 marks. In BC­II category,  the maximum marks secured by the candidate was 282 and the  cut­off marks was 267. Respondent no. 5 has secured 250 marks.  The contention of the appellant is that if at all the respondent no.  5 can be permitted to take the examination, that would have been  under General category and not as a Reserved category candidate.  It   is   not   in   dispute   that   respondent   no.   5   would   not   have  succeeded   under   General   category.   Had   the   candidature   of  respondent no. 5 been considered under BC­II category, in which  he   was   selected   in   P.T.   and   Mains   examinations,   he   would   not  have secured berth in the merit list. Whereas, if respondent no. 5  is not transported in BC­I category, the appellant would make the  grade in the merit list. So appellant has lost the berth because of  the   favour   extended   to   respondent   no.5   by   the   Controller   of  Examination   of   JPSC.   In   the   aforesaid   facts,   appointment   of  respondent no. 5 cannot be sanctioned in law.

42. What   troubles   the   Court   most   is   the   stage   when  application of respondent no. 5 was entertained and accepted by  Controller of Examination. The chart produced by JPSC reveals  that in BC­II category in which total number of seats was less than  BC­I   category,   there   were   as   many   as   8   candidates   who   had  secured more marks than respondent no. 5, ranging between 219  and  207.   In   fact,   there  were   candidates who  had secured  201,  200, 199 and 198 marks also. On the contrary, in BC­I category  there were only 2 candidates who secured more marks in Mains  examination than respondent no. 5 and thus, change of category  of respondent no. 5 from BC­II to BC­I has immensely benefited  him.   What   was   the   reason   which   moved   Controller   of  27 Examination   to   permit   change   in   caste   category   of   respondent no. 5 is really in the realm of speculation, but it is quite clear that  it has been done intentionally and purposely.  Justice and Equity :    43. Raising   a   bogey   of   “justice”,   the   learned   Senior  Counsel for respondent no. 5 proclaimed that, “justice has been  done to respondent no. 5”. It is contended that technicality should  not abort justice and the Court must be anxious to avoid injustice.  It  is  further  contended that equitable  considerations require no  interference   with   selection   of   respondent   no.   5   under   BC­I  category.   Countering   the   plea   of   justice   and   equity   raised   on  behalf   of   respondent   no.   5,   Mr.   Rajendra   Krishna,   the   learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that it would be a historical  mistake   to   sanction   selection   of   respondent   no.   5   in   judicial  service.  44. The answer to the plea of “justice and equity” raised  on behalf of respondent no. 5 is not complicated rather, it is a  simple   one.   No   doubt,   the   entire   concept   of   writ   jurisdiction  exercised   by   the   High   Courts   is   founded   on   equity   and   in   the  words of Dr. A.S. Anand, J. (as his Lordship was then) “equity is  not past the age of child­bearing” [C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of   A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193], it is well­settled that when it is found  that the claim of a party is founded on false grounds, equity takes  the back­seat. In “A.P. State Financial Corpn. Vs. Gar Re­Rolling   Mills,   (1994)   2   SCC   647,”  the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has  observed as under,  18.   “........   A   court   of   equity,   when   exercising   its  equitable   jurisdiction   under   Article   226   of   the  Constitution must so act as to prevent perpetration  of a legal fraud and  the courts  are obliged to do  justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies  within   their   power.   Equity   is   always   known   to  defend   the   law   from   crafty   evasions   and   new  subtleties invented to evade law............”     45. The   illegality   collared   around   the   selection   of  28 respondent no. 5 under BC­I category clearly dis­entitles him to  any equitable relief, rather it would be immensely inequitable to  deny relief to the appellant. Rejecting the plea of equitable relief,  in “K.G. Ashok & Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission &   Ors.” reported in (2001) 5 SCC 419, in which case the applicants  had submitted application for appointment to the post of Junior  Health Inspector Grade II in more than one district, the Hon'ble  Supreme Court has observed as under; 23.   “Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   lastly  submitted   that   as   number   of   appellants   had  crossed   the   upper   age   limit   and   number   of  vacancies   are   available,   without   disturbing   the  already selected candidates, the appellants can be  considered   for   selection   on   the   basis   of   their  placement in the merit list. In our view seeing the  conduct   of   the   appellants   in   making   false  declaration and applying in more than one district  in contravention of the gazette notification, it is not  possible to accede to their prayer even on equitable  grounds.” Impugned Order :

46. The   appellant   approached   the   Writ   Court   with   the  following prayers: (A)  For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs in  the nature of certiorari for quashing of the final result  for appointment of Jharkhand Judicial Services, Civil  Judge   (Junior   Division)   published   vide   letter   dated  13.02.2015   issued   under   the   signature   of   Secretary,  Jharkhand   Public   Service   Commission,   Ranchi  inasmuch   as   the   final   result   published   by   the  respondents is wholly illegal and without authority of  law   as   the   result   of   one   of   the   candidate   namely  Chanchal Kumar having roll no. 41320913 has been  published   and   finally   selected   under   BC­I   Category  although the said candidate belongs to BC­II Category  and his result for Civil Judge   (Junior Division) P.T.,  2014   and   Civil   Judge   (Junior   Division)   Main   Exam  Result 2014 has been published under BC­II Category  as   a   consequence   of   which,   petitioner   who   has  secured   only   one   marks   less   than   the   last   selected  candidate under BC­I Category has been deprived of  her right   to appointment for the post of Jharkhand  Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division); (B) For   issuance   of   an   appropriate   writ,   order   or  29 direction   directing   the   respondents   to   make   an  enquiry with respect to the illegality committed by the  respondents   while   publishing   the   result   of   BC­I  Category and thereafter, a further direction be issued  upon the respondents to issue appointment letter to  the petitioner who was the next candidate from the  last   selected   candidates   under   BC­I   Category  inasmuch as the petitioner fulfills all other criteria for  being   selected   for   the   post   of   Jharkhand   Judicial  Services Civil Judge (Junior Division); (C) For   issuance   of   such   other   writ,   order   or  directions   as   this   Hon'ble   Court   may   think  just   and  proper   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case  doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.  47. The   learned   Writ   Court   has   declined   relief   to   the  appellant mainly on the ground that the selection of respondent  no. 5 is not under challenge and as such the legality or otherwise  of the selection of respondent no. 5 cannot be decided in the writ  proceeding.   The   learned   Writ   Court   further   held   that   the   writ  petitioner has failed to plead any irregularity committed by the  Commission so as to debar her from being selected.  48. The learned Writ Court clearly fell  in error in holding  that selection of respondent no. 5 is not under challenge. By the  order   of   the   Court   respondent   no.   5   was   arrayed   as   a party­respondent in the writ proceeding, obviously keeping this in  mind   that   if   the   plea   raised   by   the   appellant/writ   petitioner   is  finally adjudicated in her favour it would affect respondent no. 5.  The case built by the appellant is that she would have secured a  place in the merit list if caste category of respondent no. 5 was not  illegally  changed  at  the time  of interview. The respondent­JPSC  and respondent no. 5, both have filed separate counter­affidavits  and the application dated 24.01.2015 was before the Writ Court.  In   several   paragraphs   (23   to   28,   30,   32,   34,   36   &   38),   the  appellant   has   made   serious   allegations   of   illegality,   irregularity,  malafide and extra­ordinary benefit extended to respondent no. 5.  Nothing more was required to plead that selection of respondent  no. 5 was illegal. Moreover, in a case like this the litigant may not  have knowledge of all the facts which were within the exclusive  30 knowledge of JPSC and when a counter­affidavit is filed justifying  the   action   of   the   authority,   legality   of   such   action   must   be  adjudicated   by   the   Court  on   the   basis   of   affidavits  filed   by   the  parties. The story unfolded in the affidavits and the plea taken by  the   parties   required   adjudication   on   merits,   which   the   learned  Writ   Court   has   erroneously   declined.   The   learned   Writ   Court  committed   serious   error   in   law   in   holding   that   legality   or  otherwise of the selection of respondent no. 5 cannot be decided  in   the   writ   petition.   Secondly,   the   appellant   secured   less   marks  than the candidate last selected cannot be a ground for declining  relief   to   her.   In   fact,   the   case   pleaded   by   her   is   that   had  respondent no. 5 was not included in the merit list under BC­I, she  would be the candidate last selected and that precisely was the  reason why she approached the Court. The legality or otherwise of  selection of respondent no. 5 was an issue before the Writ Court.  The impugned order dated 15.07.2015 passed in W.P(S) No. 1936  of 2015 does not address the issues raised in the writ petition. As a  sequel to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that  the   impugned   order   dated   15.07.2015   suffers   from   serious  infirmity in law, warranting interference.   LAST CONCLUSION49 The   appointment   of   respondent   No.5   is   abundantly  illegal and is liable to be terminated forthwith. The appellant was  excluded   from   the   Merit   List   and   she   has   been   denied  appointment   in   BC­I   category,   illegally.   We,   thus,   quash   the  appointment of respondent No. 5 as Civil Judge (Junior Division)  2015 Batch and direct the State to issue appointment letter to the  appellant   forthwith,   subject   to   her   fulfilling   other   conditions post­selection,  if  any. She  shall be  treated as Judicial Officer of  2015 Batch and undergo training as prescribed under Jharkhand  Judicial   Service   (Recruitment)   Rules,   2004,   for   which   the   High  Court shall take the decision. 31 50. The appellant suffered mental agony throughout this  period   after   her   illegal   exclusion   from   merit   list   under   BC­I  category, and instead respondent No. 5 was taken illegally as held  by   us,   she   deserves   to   be   compensated,   though   monetary  compensation may not meet the agony of the appellant. She was  forced   to   approach   the   Court,   and   in   the   process   she   suffered  financial   burden   in   litigating   this   matter.   We,   thus,   direct  Jharkhand   Public   Service   Commission   to   compensate   the  appellant   with   cost   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   (Rupees   One   Lac),   which  shall be deposited with Registrar General of this Court within two  weeks from today and on its deposit, the same shall be given to  the   appellant   by   Registrar   General   on   proper   verification/  identification.   51. The   net   result   is   that   the   appeal,   on   hand,   stands  allowed   and   the   impugned   order   dated   15.07.2015   passed   in W.P.(S) No. 1936 of 2015 is set aside, in turn W.P.(S) No. 1936 of  2015 stands allowed.     (Virender Singh, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 25th July, 2016 Manish/Amit/Tanuj/LAK/A.F.R.  Later on:  The   original   records   retained   by   us   for   perusal   has  now  been handed over to Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the JPSC  and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned G.P. IV in the open Court by the Court  Master.        (Virender Singh, C.J.) Mukund/­ (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)