IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18057 of 2009 1. DINESH KUMAR S/O LATE LUSAR MODI R/O VILL- NATHU DIH, P.S. CHANAN (LAKHISARAI), DISTT. LAKHISARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEADQUARTER) BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BHAGALPUR REGION, BHAGALPUR 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MUNGER 5. THE CHAIRMAN MUNGER REGIONAL POLICE SELECTION BOARD NO. 2 CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (AASU & SU) SPECIAL BRANCH, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BEGUSARAI ----------- 4. 2.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. It is submitted that he is matriculate and which was the qualification prescribed. The petitioner claims to have applied in the extremely backward caste category claiming himself to be a member of the “Sinduriya Baniya” caste based on a Government notification dated 7.4.2002. Counsel for the petitioner however acknowledges that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim for reservation classified him as backward caste. It is next submitted that based on his declaration of being a member of the extremely backward caste, the 2 respondent authorities considered him under that category and the final merit list displaying his caste status as extremely backward in which the words “extremely” has been scored out by pen. Counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court that the caste to which the petitioner belongs was classified as extremely backward caste on 12.11.2008. It is next submitted that the petitioner had himself submitted a caste certificate from the Block Development Officer which classified him as belonging to the backward caste in addition to the narration of his caste in the certificate itself. The authorities therefore had committed no error. The controversy arises in the background of the petitioner having scored 13 marks. That is the marks obtained by the last appointed candidate in the extremely backward caste category. The petitioner‟s date of birth being prior to such last appointed candidate, he stakes his claim for appointment. The Court queried from the counsel for the petitioner as to the correctness of the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner with his application form which classified him as „backward‟ narrating his caste also. Learned counsel submitted that it may have been an inadvertent error on part of the petitioner in 3 not having been careful enough but that the respondents have not been prejudiced in any manner as they throughout the selection process considered him as a candidate of the extremely backward caste. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is satisfied that the petitioner himself has to share a part of the blame. The caste certificate submitted by him described his caste explicitly as „Sinduriya Baniya‟ and then went on to describe him as a backward caste candidate. The caste certificate is dated 16.7.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that this caste was declared as extremely backward caste by a notification dated 2.4.2002. Clearly the caste certificate given to the petitioner was therefore erroneous. It was for him to have been more careful by having his caste certificate corrected before submission to the authorities. Nonetheless, the authorities did treat him as an extremely backward caste candidate. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned action of the respondents denying him appointment on the ground that he belonged to the backward category and not to the extremely backward caste category and as a candidate from former class, he was not eligible for appointment in view of his rank position cannot be 4 termed to be illegal. At best, it may be termed irregular, and for which as discussed above the petitioner must share a part of the blame also. In the entirety of the matter, this Court finds it difficult to issue any mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the case of the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. This Court finds it difficult to invoke sympathy contrary to law for grant of relief when on facts the petitioner has been held to be responsible in part and must share a part of the blame. This shall not prejudice the respondents from considering the case of the petitioner, subject to availability of vacancy, in accordance with law within a period of three months preferably from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is dismissed with aforesaid observations. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)