This case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, revolves around the denial of reservation benefits to a woman named Vidyawati Kiran who applied for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer in Bihar. The core issue is whether she is entitled to reservation as a Scheduled Caste candidate in Bihar, given that her father is a resident of Uttar Pradesh, even though she is married to a Bihar resident and has completed her education there.

Background of the Case:

Vidyawati Kiran, whose father resides in Uttar Pradesh, married Vinod Kumar, a resident of Bihar, in 1996. She completed her entire education in Bihar and identifies as a permanent resident and domicile of Bihar

. Both her father and husband belong to the Scheduled Caste community (Dushadh Caste).

She applied for the Assistant Prosecution Officer position advertised by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) in 2020, seeking reservation benefits under the Scheduled Caste category

. She successfully cleared the preliminary and mains examinations. However, when the final results were published in December 2023, her candidature was canceled because she lacked the “requisite certificate to claim the benefit of reservation under Schedule Caste Category in the State of Bihar”.

The Petitioner’s Arguments:

Vidyawati Kiran challenged the BPSC’s decision, arguing that:

• She is a permanent resident/domicile of Bihar.

• Both her father and husband belong to the Scheduled Caste community, and she herself belongs to the Scheduled Caste category in both Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

• She should be granted reservation benefit based on her caste certificate, especially since she has been married in Bihar since 1996 and completed her education there.

• Her previous representation to the BPSC, made after a prior court order, was rejected on the grounds that reservation benefits are only for “original residents of State of Bihar” and since her father is from Uttar Pradesh, she couldn’t be considered an “original resident”.

• Her counsel cited the case of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1997 Pat 31), arguing that since she is Scheduled Caste in both states, she should receive benefits in Bihar.

The Respondents’ (Bihar Public Service Commission and State) Arguments:

The BPSC and the State of Bihar countered that:

• The advertisement for the post clearly stated that reservation benefits are only for permanent residents of Bihar, and a permanent resident/domicile certificate is mandatory.

• The interview letter explicitly mentioned that the resident certificate for claiming reservation must be in the name of the candidate’s father, not the husband.

• These rules were established and made clear before the examination process began, and candidates are expected to adhere to them.

• The State argued that the BPSC’s rules are aligned with State policy.

Key Rules and Advertisements Cited:

The court highlighted specific clauses from the advertisement (Columns 6(ii) and (iii)(A)) and the interview letter (Clause 5(ii)):

• Advertisement Column 6(ii): Stated that reservation benefits are only for candidates whose permanent residence is in Bihar, meaning “original residents” of Bihar. Residents from outside Bihar would not be granted reservation, and the permanent address provided in the application would be considered for reservation purposes.

• Advertisement Column 6(iii)(A): Mandated the submission of a caste certificate and a permanent residence/domicile certificate for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.

• Interview Letter Clause 5(ii): Crucially stated that for married women claiming reservation, the caste certificate/creamy layer free certificate/residence certificate must be issued in the name and address of their father, not their husband.

The Court’s Decision:

Justice Dr. Anshuman of the High Court observed that:

• The rules regarding reservation were clearly framed and advertised before the examination process. The petitioner, therefore, had no option but to follow these rules unless they were changed.

• The court distinguished Vidyawati Kiran’s case from Dr. Rajesh Kumar Paswan. The Paswan case dealt with admission to a P.G. Medical Course, where the individual was not seeking to “settle” in Bihar or gain special privilege through that settlement. In contrast, seeking a government service position implies an intention to settle in Bihar.

• Because the rules framed and advertised by the BPSC remain unchanged, the court was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed

. The court upheld the BPSC’s decision, emphasizing that established rules and policies, particularly concerning domicile and the basis for issuing caste/residence certificates for married women, must be adhered to. This ruling reinforces the principle that candidates are bound by the conditions set forth in official advertisements and regulations governing recruitment processes.

Read the full judgement Below;

 https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTE2NzIjMjAyNCMxI04=-flIRh2yct3w=