Husband named on her caste certificate, not father: Patna HC says BPSC cannot push SC doctor into general list
A division bench dismissed the Bihar Public Service Commission appeal and upheld a single judge order directing it to consider a Patna gynaecologist for an Assistant Professor post in the Scheduled Caste quota, holding that the 2017 advertisement never required a married woman to produce a certificate in her father's name.
The Bihar Public Service Commission could not move a Scheduled Caste doctor into the general merit list because the caste certificate she filed named her husband rather than her father. The Patna High Court held on 30 October 2026 that the recruitment advertisement contained no such requirement.
A division bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Sourendra Pandey dismissed the Commission's Letters Patent Appeal against a single judge judgment of 14 February 2023. Justice Shah wrote the judgment for the bench.
The single judge had directed the authorities to consider Dr. Sushma Sharan for appointment as Assistant Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology under the SC category on her merit, if otherwise suitable. She is to be offered appointment from the date similarly placed candidates with lower merit were appointed, though without all consequential benefits.
Thirteen SC posts, five for women
Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 invited applications for 74 Assistant Professor posts in Bihar's medical colleges and hospitals. Thirteen were reserved for Scheduled Castes, and five of those were earmarked for women.
The Commission told the court that Advertisements 7 to 31 of 2017 together covered 1,171 Assistant Professor posts requisitioned by the Health Department on 26 February 2016, under the Bihar Health Service Recruitment Rules of 2008 and the revised rules of 2013.
Dr. Sharan applied under the SC category with a caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, No. 1598, dated 2 August 2006. The Commission scrutinised her application, found it in order and called her for interview, which she attended on 28 February 2018. Her original documents, including the certificate, were verified.
The Commission prepared a combined merit list from the candidates' academic marks and interview marks. When the results of 37 successful candidates came out on 8 August 2019, her name was not in the SC list.
One chance to correct, then the general list
The Commission's minutes of 8 August 2019 explained why. During verification it found that married women from reserved categories had filed caste or non-creamy layer certificates in their husband's name instead of their father's.
It published notices in newspapers and on its website on 16 and 21 July 2018, giving such candidates one chance to submit a correct certificate on 6 or 7 August 2018. Those who did not would be considered in the unreserved category.
Those notices went out nearly five months after Dr. Sharan's interview on 28 February 2018, and after her original documents had already been verified. The minutes, produced with the Commission's counter affidavit, discussed her case specifically.
Dr. Sharan was placed in the unreserved list. The cut-off there was 37.50; she had 29 marks and stood at merit position 50, while the last selected unreserved candidate was at position 27.
She went to the High Court in CWJC No. 18940 of 2019. Her petition said she is the daughter of the late Mahim Chand Ram, a Scheduled Caste, as shown by a Circle Officer certificate of 17 August 2019, and that her husband Ganga Sharan is also SC.
She asked the court to direct the Commission to declare her result against the Assistant Professor post in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Scheduled Caste category under Advertisement No. 20 of 2017.
Why the single judge ruled for her
The single judge relied on the Supreme Court's decision of 23 May 2022 in Aarav Jain v. Bihar Public Service Commission. One appellant there, an SC woman candidate, had first produced a certificate bearing her husband's name and later one in her father's name, and the Supreme Court held the rejection of the candidates improper.
That case concerned eight candidates who had been selected but denied appointment as judicial officers, each with more marks than the last selected candidate in their category. The Commission had argued it could not relax the conditions in its own advertisement. The Supreme Court, without going into the rival arguments, also noted that vacancies were available.
He also cited Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779, for the principle that rules on submitting proof of reserved status are procedural and need not be applied rigidly, so that every lapse does not mean rejection.
The single judge reasoned that an SC candidate's status cannot be denied and she cannot be forced into the general category. A certificate that does not match the latest guidelines does not end that status, and the government officers who issue certificates are responsible for making them acceptable to selecting bodies.
The Commission: terms of the advertisement bind
Counsel for the Commission, Kaushal Kumar Jha, argued that the advertisement and the interview letter both required an SC candidate to produce a certificate from the Circle Officer, and her certificate came from the Sub-divisional Officer. The Circle Officer certificate of 17 August 2019 surfaced only with her writ petition, filed on 20 August 2019.
He said Aarav Jain turned on its own facts and set no precedent. He relied on the Full Bench decision in Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1998 (3) PLJR 34, that a last date fixed for supporting documents must be enforced and late documents rejected.
He also cited the coordinate bench ruling in Vandana Govindam v. State of Bihar, 2011 (2) PLJR 585, that candidates must abide by the advertisement and a caste certificate filed after the interview cannot be entertained.
The doctor: no such rule existed
Senior Advocate Chitranjan Sinha, for Dr. Sharan, said the only reason for rejecting her SC candidature was the husband's name on the certificate. Nothing in the advertisement asked for the father's name, and the Commission's counsel admitted that no such condition existed.
Nobody had suggested that either her father or her husband was not a Scheduled Caste. The Commission's own minutes showed it had acted on the husband's name, not on which officer signed the certificate.
In any case, he argued, the Sub-divisional Officer outranks the Circle Officer, and in 2006 the SDO was the competent authority. He added that the Commission's counter affidavit showed five seats still vacant.
He relied on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754, where the Supreme Court held that rejecting SC and ST candidates for late submission of caste certificates denies the equality of opportunity in Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A.
In Gijroya, the Supreme Court restored a Delhi High Court single judge order that a division bench had reversed. It held the division bench had failed to follow the Constitution Bench rulings in Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul on the purpose of reservation in public employment.
Along the way it approved the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Tej Pal Singh: a person is a Scheduled Caste by birth, not from the date a certificate is issued. The certificate only affirms a fact that already exists, so insisting on one of a particular date was arbitrary.
The question the bench framed
The bench put the issue this way:
“whether non-mentioning of the name of the father of the respondent no.1 in the caste certificate dated 02.08.2006 and instead mentioning the name of her husband would entail consideration of the candidature of the respondent no.1 under the unreserved category” (para 16)
Its answer was no. A reading of all the terms of Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 showed no condition that an SC candidate's certificate must carry her father's name rather than a married woman's husband's name.
A door the Full Bench left open
On the ancillary point of the SDO certificate, the bench turned to the same Full Bench ruling the Commission had cited. Paragraph 26(d) of Braj Kishore Prasad allows a writ court to grant relief where extreme hardship or injustice results from factors beyond a candidate's control, provided she acted diligently.
The same passage bars relief where the certificate is produced for the first time after selection is complete and the recommendation made. The bench read the ruling as leaving the writ court's power unfettered in deserving cases, and said that is exactly what the single judge had done.
A certificate affirms a fact
The bench called it settled law that a caste certificate only affirms a fact that already exists by birth, the same formulation the Supreme Court had endorsed in Gijroya. Its purpose is to let the authorities believe the candidate's claim and give her the benefit of her category.
Reservation, the bench noted, exists to remove inequality in public employment for SC and ST candidates who cannot compete on equal terms with the general category. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are enabling provisions that let the government make special provision for them.
The Commission had never denied that Dr. Sharan is a Scheduled Caste. Keeping that object in mind, the bench held her SC candidature could not be rejected “merely on the ground of non-existent technicalities/reasons” (para 19).
It added that the Commission did not dispute that the SDO who issued the 2006 certificate ranks above a Circle Officer, and that she had also annexed the Circle Officer's certificate of 17 August 2019 to her writ petition.
Order
Finding no infirmity in the single judge's judgment of 14 February 2023 in CWJC No. 18940 of 2019, the bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The direction to consider Dr. Sharan for the Assistant Professor post in Obstetrics and Gynaecology under the SC category on merit stands.
The bench made no separate order on the five vacancies the doctor's counsel had pointed to, and no order on costs. The appeal was reserved on 3 August 2026, and the judgment is marked as fit for reporting.