IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15994 of 2007 BINDA PRAKASH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 29.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In pursuance of advertisement no. 34/2005 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission inviting application for the post of Child Development Project Officer, the petitioner applied in the reserved category of scheduled caste supported by a proper caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Patna. Having competed in the preliminary test, she appeared at the final written examination and cleared the same also. She was then called for interview when she was found fit for recommendation but by a corrigendum dated 24.10.2007 inclusion of her name in the list of successful candidates has been annulled. The premise is that the caste certificate produced by her at the time of interview was not issued by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur of which petitioner was a permanent resident. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the denial of recommendation to the petitioner on that ground - 2 - arbitrary inasmuch the ground is non-est. There being no such condition in the advertisement at any stage and the caste certificate dated 24.4.1987 produced by her issued by the District Magistrate , Patna being not in controversy. Learned counsel for the Commission sought to persuade the court that in terms of the advertisement, the petitioner was required to submit her caste certificate from the concerned District Magistrate of which she was permanent resident. Secondly that the certificate dated 24.4.1987 was old and no credence could be given to it in the year 2007. The advertisement with regard to the preliminary test, written test and interview call letter all are on record. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The advertisement itself visualized that an applicant may have a permanent address and present address, which may or may not be common. On perusal of the advertisement, as brought on record in the counter affidavit, this Court does not find any condition incorporated therein that the caste certificate was to be produced from the concerned District Magistrate of which - 3 - the applicant was a permanent resident. The advertisement only stated that the caste certificate must be from the competent District Magistrate or SDO. The interview call letter sent to the petitioner at column 6, only repeated the need for a caste certificate from the concerned District Magistrate. The words “concerned District Magistrate” has to be read, in context of the advertisement which required the candidates to disclose both their permanent and present address which may or may not be the same. To read into the advertisement something which is not there and then to require the petitioner at the risk of non-suiting her to produce a caste certificate from the District Magistrate of her place of permanent residence only can not be sustained. The denial of recommendation to her on that ground therefore becomes illegal. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have not denied or disputed the correctness ,genuiness and validity of the caste certificate dated 24.4.1987 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna in favour of the petitioner. The argument that the certificate issued in 1987 is too old in the year 2007 is an argument of desperation . If the petitioner was of a - 4 - particular caste in the year 1987, does her caste change in the year 2007 ? The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of recommendation for appointment and take a final decision thereupon in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. shahid (Navin Sinha,J )