Shyam Nandan Mehta vs Santosh Kumar

2025 INSC 586 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 7418 of 2022)

SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA … APPELLANT

Versus

SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant would call in question the impugned

judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing his Letter Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Patent Appeal affirming the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.04.29 17:32:13 IST Reason:

the learned Single Judge declaring the appointment of the 2

appellant to be illegal making him liable to be terminated from

service forthwith and directed the State to conclude the

verification of the relevant documents of the concerned for

consideration of the writ petitioner’s case for appointment on

the post of Assistant Teacher.

3. The issue relates to the appointment on the post of

Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher1 for the district of

Palamau consequent to Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015

dated 04.07.2015. At the end of selection process, the writ

petitioner/respondent no. 1 herein, secured 65.496 marks

whereas the appellant/respondent no. 7 in the writ petition

secured 68.125 marks. Thus, on the strength of his merit

position, the appellant was declared successful and appointed

as Assistant Teacher.

4. After two years from the date of appointment of the

appellant, a writ petition was preferred by the first respondent

inter alia alleging that the appointment of the

appellant/respondent no. 7 is based on manipulation in TET

examination certificate wherein he has shown his caste status

1 “Assistant Teacher” 3

under Most Backward Class2 (MBC) category whereas in the

selection process he has shown himself to be Backward

Class3(BC) category. In respect of other respondent nos. 8 to

10 (in the writ petition) it was stated that even though they

have been appointed under handicapped category, yet their

appointment also suffers from manipulation and illegality done

in the selection process.

5. The selected candidates contested the writ petition

by raising the defence inter alia that respondent no. 7

(appellant herein) belongs to BC-II category as is evident from

the caste certificate dated 03.02.2001 but due to inadvertent

mistake his category has been mentioned as ‘MBC’ in the TET

certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council4 and that

the appellant is positioned ahead of the writ

petitioner/respondent no.1 having secured more marks than

him in the selection process. According to the

appellant/respondent no. 7, the advertisement would make it

evident that the vacancy position under the ‘BC’ category is

less in number when compared with ‘MBC’ category, therefore,

2 ‘MBC’ 3 ‘BC’ 4 ‘JAC’ 4

respondent no. 1 has not derived any benefit due to the

discrepancy in mentioning ‘MBC’ in the certificate issued by the

JAC and ‘BC’ category in which the petitioner/respondent no. 1

appeared in the selection process.

In respect of other private respondents arrayed as

respondent nos.9,10 & 11 herein (respondent nos. 8,9 & 10 in

the writ petition) it was submitted that they were appointed

under handicapped category and that they are fully eligible for

appointment in the category in which they have applied and

selected on their own merit.

6. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition, and the

Division Bench affirmed the order on the ground that the 1st

respondent has committed manipulation in procuring the TET

certificate showing himself to be the member of ‘MBC’ category

while offering his candidature in the selection process as ‘BC’

category and secured appointment. The appointment of other

private respondents has been set aside on the ground that

respondent no. 8 (Vijay Kumar Gupta) has appeared in the TET

examination as a non-handicapped candidate whereas in the 5

selection process he has been selected under the handicapped

category, therefore, his appointment is illegal.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Ajit Kumar

Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would

submit that the appellant committed unintentional error by

mentioning his caste as ‘MBC’ instead of ‘BC’ while submitting

the form for TET examination in the year 2012. The same

occurred due to bifurcation of ‘OBC’ into ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ by the

State Government. It is also submitted that the appellant had

correctly submitted the TET certificate indicating ‘MBC’ as his

category. It is further argued that the TET certificate confirms

the candidate’s eligibility for applying for teaching posts and is

not intended to determine caste-based reservation benefits or

categorization. It is strenuously argued that in the subject

recruitment, more number of posts were advertised for ‘MBC’

category whereas the appellant being a ‘BC’, applied in this

category to compete for lesser number of vacancies. Thus, the

appellant has never tried or succeeded in gaining undeserving

benefit in the selection process. It is lastly submitted that

having been appointed in the year 2015 the appellant is 6

continuously working, therefore, he being more meritorious

than the first respondent/writ petitioner, the impugned order

deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel

appearing for respondent no. 1/writ petitioner would submit

that the appellant obtained ’OBC’ certificate on 03.02.2001 and

revised caste certificate was issued in his favour for Backward

Class on 14.12.2013 whereas in the TET examination he

appeared as ‘MBC’ candidate, therefore, there is clear

contradiction and manipulation in his TET certificate which is a

necessary qualification for appointment, therefore, the Writ

Court has righty set aside the appellant’s appointment. It is the

specific stand of the first respondent in the note submitted

before this Court that the National Council for Teacher

Education’s guidelines of conducting TET examination dated

11.02.2011 do not prescribe annexing the caste certificate.

Thus, the appellant’s act of mentioning his caste ‘MBC’ in the

TET application form is his own declaration. Thus, the appellant

had claimed to belong to different category in two different 7

examinations evidencing manipulation in the recruitment

process.

9. Learned counsel for JAC (respondent no. 8) has

submitted that once the appellant obtained TET certificate

under a particular category, he is not permitted to change his

category without correction of TET certificate. It is submitted

that same cutoff marks in the TET examination for ‘BC’ & ‘MBC’

for the subject TET examination of 2012 would hardly make

any difference for the reason that ‘MBC’ category is a more

privileged class than the ’BC’ category. The appellant with an

eye over privileges available to ‘MBC’ category cleared TET

examination as ‘MBC’ candidate and has secured appointment

as ‘BC’ candidate which is wholly impermissible.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length and perused the record, particularly, the original record

of the subject recruitment consisting of appellant’s application

and the documents annexed thereto. The record contains three

photo copies of TET certificates produced by the appellant out

of which two certificates mention his category as ‘MBC’

whereas one photocopy mentions his category as ‘BC’. The 8

record also contains the caste certificate dated 14.12.2013 in

which the appellant is declared to be belonging to ‘BC’

category. The original certificates were produced at the time of

counselling. The present is not a case where there is any

allegation against the appellant either by the JAC or by the

recruiting agency that the appellant has fraudulently declared

his caste status as ‘MBC’ though he actually belongs to ‘BC’. It

is an admitted position that neither at the time of TET

examination nor in the present recruitment, the appellant has

secured undue advantage or favour by showing his caste status

as ‘MBC’ or ‘BC’ as the case may be. It is also an admitted

position as mentioned in para 7 of the written submissions of

JAC (respondent no. 8) that in the relevant year the cutoff

marks for clearing TET examination were same for ‘BC’ and

‘MBC’ categories. Likewise in the present recruitment the

appellant has secured more marks than respondent no.1 (writ

petitioner). He has not obtained any weightage of marks or

relaxation by claiming to be belonging to ‘BC’ category which is

his actual caste category. The genuineness of his caste

certificate is also not questioned by any of the respondents. 9

11. The writ petition was preferred on the allegation that

the appellant has committed manipulation. However, there is

no evidence that the appellant has committed any manipulation

in the present recruitment process. The Division Bench has not

gone into the issue of manipulation, but the impugned

judgment is founded on Clause 20 of the advertisement which

imposed a duty on the applicant to provide correct information.

It is not the case of the recruiting agency that the appellant

has submitted any incorrect information while submitting his

application form in the present recruitment. The original record

contains the photocopies of the TET examination certificate

submitted by the appellant and the original of which was

submitted at the time of counselling. Thus, the appellant has

not submitted any incorrect information at the time of

counselling. The recruiting agency has not cancelled the

appellant’s appointment on the allegation of submitting

incorrect information. It is for the recruiting agency to take

action against any candidate if incorrect information is

supplied. The same cannot be made a foundation for allowing

the writ petition when the said information does not affect the

candidate's eligibility to appear in the examination. The present 10

is not a case of submission of false certificates of qualifying

examination or a false caste certificate.

12. Thus, in our considered view, the High Court has

wrongly set aside the appellant’s appointment. We,

accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned

order.

No order as to cost.

………………………………………J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

………………………………………J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) APRIL 29, 2025 NEW DELHI.