IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8324 of 2010 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI RAJENDRA MISTRY R/O M.I.G.-132, HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA – Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY P.O.- VETNARI COLLEGE, PATNA-14 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION PATNA, P.O.- VETNARI COLLEGE, PATNA-14 – Respondents. ----------- 2 13.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner applied for the post of Block Statistical Observer / Junior Statistical / Investigator in pursuance of the advertisement bearing no. 1606/2006. The date of filling up the form was 22.9.2006 which was subsequently extended to 26.11.2009. The case of the petitioner is that the time was again extended to 30.11.2009. The petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on the ground that he has submitted the certificate that he has successfully passed matriculation examination and a certificate issued by the Subdivisional Officer that he does not belong to creamy layer. The advertisement specifically requires that the caste certificate should be produced and certified by the Subdivisional Officer, whereas the non- creamy layer certificate should be certified by the District Magistrate. When the matter was heard yesterday, this court asked the counsel for Staff Selection Commission to produce the certificate sent by the petitioner, as it was contended that the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the District Magistrate. The photo stat copies of the certificates were produced which have duly been 2 received by the Commission on 30.11.2009 and has been signed by the petitioner on 26.11.2009, indicating that the petitioner does not belong to creamy layer. The certificates issued by the Sub-divisional Officer is a caste certificate and creamy layer certificate. The application and the certificate signed by the petitioner sent to the Commission shall be kept on record. There is a provision in the advertisement that the District Magistrate is the only authority to issue the creamy layer certificate. Obviously the petitioner did not submit the certificate of the District Magistrate before the State Selection Commission as a result of which his candidature was rejected. The question as to whether the certificate issued by the Subdivisional Officer should be accepted has been decided in the case of Rupa Kumari vs. State of Bihar, 2008 (4) PLJR 526 wherein the court has held that if there is a requirement in the advertisement that the particulars have to be submitted duly signed or attested by a particular authority, then it is essential that the same should be followed in toto, keeping in view the fact that in this competitive world there has to be screening process and scrutiny before appointments are made. Considering the ratio of the decision laid down in the case of Rupa Kumari (supra), I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)