Manisha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6336 of 2023 ====================================================== Manisha Kumari Daughter of Late Bhagelu Sah Wife of Rahul Kumar, Resident of Village-Manguraha P.O. and P.S.-Gaunaha, District-West Champaran at Present Rahul Kumar Son of Ram Narayan Prasad Resident of Mohalla-Main Road Raxaul P.O. and P.S.-Raxaul District-East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission 19 Harding Road, Patna.
3.
Lovely Kumari Daughter of Vishnudev Mahto District-Lakhi Sarai (Serial No. 25 B.C. Category Same Kit Merit number 201) through Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission 19 Harding Road, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC- 1 For the B.T.S.C.
:
Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Technical Service Commission (for brevity 'BTSC').
2.
The writ petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure- 14), whereby she has been informed that she was not a selected candidate. Petitioner's candidature has not been considered because in the online application form, she claims to have entered reservation category as Economically Backward Classes (EBC). The documents, in support of her claim showed her to be member of
2/5 the Backward Classes (BC) (sonar).
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at a subsequent stage, when objection were called for, in the process of selection, petitioner had submitted an objection seeking correction of her reservation category from EBC to BC, by submitting that in the online application form, EBC category was claimed due to a typographical error of inadvertence, as the certificate, in support of her claim, which were submitted at that time, clearly showed her to be a member of the BC category. It is the petitioner's complain that in spite of error being inadvertent, and apparent, her candidature has not been accepted by the Authorities.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondent- Commission, on the other hand, submits that the Commission as well as the applicants are bound by the terms of the advertisement. The procedure does not leave discretion in the Authorities to change the category of reservation, once it is claimed as a particular category in the online application form.
5.
Clause- 4 of the Advertisement, which deals with the issue of reservation is clear in its intent that no such correction or modification is to be allowed. Specific reliance is placed on Clause- 4(i), Note (iii) & 4 (vi), which reads as
3/5 follows:-
4. आरक्षण:- (i) ऑनललाईन आवदन कव इगगित ककॉलम म आरक्षण कला दलावला नहहीं करनव पर आरक्षण कला ललाभ नहहीं गमलवगिला । ननोट- (iii) आरगक्षत कनोगट कव उम्ममीदवलार अपनमी जलागत कव अनुरूप आरक्षण कव सइबइध म पूणर्ण रूप सव सइतनुष्ट हनोनव कव पशलात् हमी आरक्षण कला अइकण आवदन कव सइबइगधत ककॉलम म करमगिव एवइ आवदन भरतव समय उनकव पलास आरगक्षत कनोगट कव अनुरूप सक्षम पलागधकलार सव गनगिर्णत पमलाण-पत उपलब्ध हनोनला अगनवलायर्ण हनोगिला। आरक्षण कनोगट म सनुधलार / बदललाव पइजमीकरण कव उपरलान्त नहहीं गकयला जला सकवगिला। दलावला गकए गिए कनोगट सव इतर कनोगट कला पमलाण - पत पस्तनुत करनव अथवला अन्य गकसमी पकलार कमी तनुगट हनोनव पर आरक्षण कला दलावला - मलान्य नहहीं हनोगिला। (Emphasis mine)..
(vi) सलामलान्य पशलासन गवभलागि कव जलापपांक16144, गदनपांक 28.11.2012 कव आलनोक म गनयनुगकत पगक्रियला कव बमीच आरक्षण कनोगट म सनुधलार / बदललाव नहहीं गकयला जला सकतला ह। 6.
He submits that the procedure specified in the advertisement is final and binding, and it is not open to the Authorities to deviate from the same, much less give the petitioner any right to claim a benefit contrary to the terms of
4/5 advertisement which are being applied uniformly to all candidates.
7.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that under a similar circumstances, this Court has earlier rejected claim for such change having regard to the similar provisions contained in the advertisement. Reference is made to unreported decision of this Court, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1128 of 2018 (Sunil Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). 8.
The Court having examined the provisions of the advertisement, would observe that the same are clear and lay down mandatory, non-discriminatory & non-arbitrary provisions, which bars correction in the category of reservation, once it is entered in the online application. 9.
It also mentions in unequivocal terms that if the certificate based on which the applicant claims reservation is at variance with the category in which the applicant claims reservation, as in the instant case, then claim for reservation will not be entertained.
10.
This Court also finds that the petitioner, as per averment made in the writ petition, has been considered as a candidate in the unreserved category. As per her own assertion, she obtained 58.6385 % as against cut off 59.1684 % for the
5/5 unreserved category, and therefore was not eligible for appointment against unreserved vacancies. In view of the terms of advertisement considered above she is also not entitled to be selected by extending her the benefit of any reserved category as that would be contrary, to the terms of advertisement. 11.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj kishore/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04-08-2023 Transmission Date N/A