Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case before the Patna High Court revolved around the eligibility of a candidate seeking reservation benefits for the post of Lecturer in Arts and Crafts in Government Training Colleges in Bihar. The petitioner, an aspirant from the Lohar community, challenged the Bihar Public Service Commission’s (BPSC) refusal to consider his candidature under the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category.

In 2016, BPSC released Advertisement No. 04/2016, inviting applications for 26 Lecturer posts, of which 5 were reserved for EBC candidates. Clause 7 of the advertisement clearly mandated that candidates claiming reservation under the EBC or Backward Class category must submit three documents: (a) caste certificate, (b) domicile certificate, and (c) non-creamy layer certificate. Further, it specified that these original certificates must be produced at the time of the interview, failing which the candidate would not receive reservation benefits.

The petitioner submitted his caste certificate dated 07.09.2015 showing his EBC status but failed to provide a non-creamy layer certificate. Despite this, he appeared for the written exam held in 2018, where he scored 69.48 marks. In the final selection published on 04.07.2020, the cutoff for EBC was 64.45, while for the unreserved category it was 71.766. The petitioner argued that he had higher marks than the last EBC candidate selected and should therefore have been chosen under the EBC quota.

The BPSC, however, considered him under the unreserved category due to his failure to produce the non-creamy layer certificate either at the application stage or at the interview. Consequently, he fell short of the unreserved cutoff and was not selected.

The petitioner’s main contention was that the refusal to grant him EBC benefits was unfair because:

• He belonged to the Lohar community, which was earlier recognized as EBC.
• In 2016, confusion arose when the State issued a circular treating Lohars as Scheduled Tribes, leading to denial of non-creamy layer certificates by authorities.
• The technical omission of not furnishing the certificate should not deprive him of his rightful claim, as held in some earlier Supreme Court cases.

He relied on decisions such as Ram Kumar Gijroya v. DSSSB (2016), where delayed submission of a caste certificate was accepted, and Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC (2017), which stressed that minor procedural lapses should not bar deserving candidates.

The BPSC and State opposed his claim, citing a Full Bench judgment in Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1998), which held that supporting documents required by an advertisement must be submitted within the deadline, else the claim cannot be entertained. They also argued that creamy layer status is not a permanent caste attribute but varies depending on family income and social status; hence, without a valid certificate, reservation cannot be claimed.

The High Court agreed with the BPSC. It reasoned that:

• Submission of a non-creamy layer certificate was an essential condition, not a mere formality.
• The petitioner never obtained such a certificate at any point, even after the interview. This distinguished his case from others where certificates were produced belatedly.
• Caste is permanent, but creamy layer status is not—it must be periodically verified. Without this certificate, BPSC had no basis to treat him as an EBC candidate.
• The confusion about Lohar caste status could not excuse the petitioner’s failure because he never challenged the 2016 circular in time. He only raised it four years later in this writ petition.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ, holding that the petitioner’s exclusion from EBC reservation was justified.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• For aspirants in Bihar: The case serves as a cautionary precedent that candidates must strictly comply with recruitment advertisement conditions. Missing or delayed submission of mandatory documents, especially non-creamy layer certificates, can cost eligibility for reservation.
• For recruitment bodies: The decision reinforces the need for transparent, rule-based recruitment. Authorities are not permitted to relax deadlines or conditions unless explicitly provided in the advertisement.
• For legal clarity: It distinguishes between caste identity (a permanent attribute) and creamy layer status (a variable factor based on income and social conditions). This judgment emphasizes the importance of creamy layer certification in ensuring only genuinely disadvantaged candidates benefit from reservations.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and Court’s Reasoning

• Whether failure to submit a non-creamy layer certificate disentitles a candidate from EBC reservation?
  • Yes. The Court held that submission of the certificate was mandatory and essential; without it, the petitioner could not be considered under EBC.
• Whether confusion over Lohar community’s status as ST/EBC could excuse non-submission?
  • No. The petitioner did not challenge the 2016 notification in time, nor did he obtain the certificate at any later stage.
• Whether principles from Ram Kumar Gijroya or Dheerender Singh Paliwal applied?
  • No. In those cases, candidates possessed valid certificates but submitted them late. Here, the petitioner never had the certificate.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754
• Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276
• Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. UPSC, (2006) 10 SCC 587
• Shashi Bhushan Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2019 (3) PLJR 466

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1998) 3 PLJR 34 (Full Bench)
• Dr. Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2017 (1) PLJR 786
• Tar Babu Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2011 (4) PLJR 185
• Harish Chandra Patel v. State of Bihar, 2012 (1) PLJR 397
• Vandana Govindam v. State of Bihar, 2011 (2) PLJR 585
• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

Case Title

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7661 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 491

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh (Oral Judgment dated 04.01.2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate; Mrs. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
• For the Respondent State: Ms. Shilpa Singh, G.A.-12; Ms. Abhanjali, AC to G.A.-12
• For the Respondent BPSC: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzY2MSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-9M0nHSCrePU=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.