IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15582 of 2010 ANUPMA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 26.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’ ). The petitioner is stated to have been an applicant in the Backward Caste (lady) (Category 06) under Advertisement No. 4/2007 published by the Commission for holding 48th to 52nd Combined Competitive Examination for different posts under different categories. She is aggrieved by her non selection, alleging that at least five persons with lesser marks than her in her category have been declared successful causing hostile discrimination and arbitrariness. The core of the controversy is the question of fulfillment of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement with regard to those claiming reservation. A candidate claiming benefit of reservation under the backward class was required to produce a caste/creamy layer certificate from the District Magistrate of which the candidate was a resident or counter signed by the District Magistrate, alternatively from the Additional Collector authorized by the District Magistrate. The last date for producing the original caste certificate was to be the date of the interview failing which the candidature shall be considered in the general category. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the certificate submitted by the petitioner from the Sub Divisional Officer was accepted by the respondents and acted upon when they 2 permitted her to appear at the examination and issued her the interview call as a reserved candidate. Therefore, there was no justification for not declaring the petitioner as a successful candidate in her category even while selecting persons with lesser marks in her category. It is submitted that the certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer/Revenue Officer carries equal weightage as that issued by the District Magistrate or the Additional Collector unless and until correctness of the certificate being in dispute. The District Magistrate or the Additional Collector also issues the certificate on verification by the revenue authorities. Strong reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 35 of 2008. Counsel for the Commission opposes the application and submits that the conditions of the advertisement have to be strictly complied with. On the own showing of the petitioner she submitted a certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer and not the District Magistrate or the Additional Collector as mentioned in the Advisement. The application itself was therefore incompetent. Any inadvertent error by consideration of such applicant shall not amount to waiver or estoppel of the conditions in the Advertisement. In absence of proper caste/creamy layer certificate, there is no error in the rejection of candidature of the petitioner in the reserved category. He strongly relies on another Division Bench order of this Court in LPA No. 650 of 2010. The Advertisement in the Clause dealing with Reservation makes it explicit that a candidate claiming benefit of backward class reservation category had to submit the necessary 3 caste/creamy layer certificate from the District Magistrate or the Additional Collector. A plain reading of the Advertisement in its clear language which is not ambiguous in any manner only provides that the last date for producing the original reservation certificate shall be at the time of interview. This does not derogate from the requirement to submit the original caste certificate from the competent authority, the District Magistrate or the Additional Collector along with the application. It was only the submission of the original certificate which was extended till the date of the interview. There is no relaxation or extension of the opportunity to submit the caste certificate till the date of interview. The petitioner on her own submission submitted a caste certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, on her own admission, her application was not in consonance with the Advertisement. The conditions stipulated in the advertisement are sacrosanct and it shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court to dilute, rewrite or interpret the same. The question of interpreting the advertisement may or may not arise only if the language of the advertisement is ambiguous. The Court has already held that the language of the present advertisement is clear and not ambiguous. The contention of the petitioner that the District Magistrate or the Additional Collector issues certification based on the information furnished by the revenue authorities and that the Sub Divisional Officer was a revenue authority, therefore, there was no serious illegality in the caste certificate to reject her candidature, does not appeal to the Court. If the conditions in 4 the advertisement are clear and admit of no ambiguity there is no occasion for the Court to enter into any interpretation of the conditions of the advertisement to decipher if the caste certificate by the Sub Divisional Officer who is the revenue authority would suffice in lieu of a certification from the District Magistrate or the Additional Collector. It is not in controversy that even on 16.3.2010, the date of interview, the petitioner did not produce such certificate from the competent authority if it could have been accepted even if produced, but did so belatedly on 17.5.2010. LPA No. 35 of 2008 arose out of an advertisement dated 13.4.2005. The advertisement itself provided that the backward class/ creamy-layer certificate could have been obtained from the District Magistrate or countersigned by him, the Additional Collector or the Sub Divisional Officer. The last date for production of such certificate according to the advertisement was the date of interview. It was the specific case of the candidate that at the time of interview she was asked to produce the caste certificate from the District Magistrate and an undertaking was taken from her to submit the same till specified date. She submitted the same within the specified date nonetheless she was not considered in the reserved category. The Court posed the question whether the caste/creamy layer certificate could be submitted only from the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate or could it be obtained from the Sub Divisional Officer. Answering the question the Court held that there was no requirement that the caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer was required to be 5 countersigned by the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate. The advertisement itself providing that it could be submitted from the Sub Divisional Officer. The fact that during the interview the petitioner was granted time to submit a certificate from the District Magistrate was also noticed and that it was submitted within the time granted. LPA No. 650 of 2010 arises out of the present advertisement. This Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the discussion contained in it at variance with LPA No. 35 of 2008 except to take note of the fact relevant to place the petitioner in a class apart. The judgment notices that the Commission had given yet another opportunity to all the candidates who had qualified in the written test for submitting the caste certificate as mentioned in the interview letter. This, the petitioner also acknowledges. Once the petitioner admits that even at the time of interview she did not produce the original caste/creamy-layer certificate from the competent authority that itself substantially and materially distinguishes her case from that of the candidate in LPA No. 35 of 2008 who was granted time to submit such certificate and she did so within the time so granted. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)