Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bablu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to produce the mandatory Non‑Creamy Layer certificate justified the Commission’s decision to treat him as a general‑category candidate, and therefore the writ was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, belonging to the Lohar caste, applied for a driver post under the Bihar Staff Selection Commission's 2016 advertisement, claiming reservation as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) after his caste was moved from the MBC list. The advertisement required candidates from MBC/EBC categories to produce a Non‑Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate at counseling, which the petitioner failed to do. Consequently, the Commission treated him as a general‑category applicant and did not select him. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to be declared as qualified and to have the merit list revised in his favour, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16. The Court examined the timing of the caste re‑classification, noting it occurred after the application deadline, and held that the petitioner was required to furnish the NCL certificate. Finding no error in the Commission's action, the Court dismissed the writ application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Commission was justified in treating the petitioner as a general‑category candidate despite his claim of ST/MBC status
  • Whether the petitioner’s failure to produce the required Non‑Creamy Layer certificate barred him from reservation benefits
  • Whether the denial of reservation to the petitioner violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Subjects

  • reservation
  • Scheduled Tribe
  • Most Backward Class
  • Non‑Creamy Layer
  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • writ of mandamus
  • recruitment
  • Bihar Staff Selection Commission

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1668 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Bablu Kumar Son of Arjun Mishtri Resident of Village- Maniyar Chak, P.S.-
     Piri Bazar, Distict- Lakhisarai.

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar.
3.   The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Post Veterinary College, Patna,
     through its Secretary.
4.   The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College,
     Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s     :      Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
                                     Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
     For the B.S.S.C          :      Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                       ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 23-03-2026

                        Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                       2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for

       the following relief (s) :-

                         “1. (i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of writ
                         of mandamus commanding the respondents
                         to declare the result of the petitioner as pass
                         or having qualified on merit in the
                         recruitment of drivers on vacant post under
                         the State Govt vide Advt. no. 13010116 dated
                         22.06.2016 as wrongly the respondents have
                         excluded the name of the petitioner from the
                         list of successful candidates, treating him to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1668 of 2022 dt.23-03-2026
                                           2/6




                          be a general class candidate whereas the
                          petitioner is a member of SC/ST category
                          and denial of benefit of reservation despite
                          having obtained 48 marks in the examination
                          which is substantially higher than the cutoff
                          marks of 41 marks on which other SC/ST
                          candidates        have      been    selected    is
                          discriminatory and violation Article 14 & 16
                          to the constitution of India.
                          (ii) Issuance of a writ again in the nature of
                          writ of mandamus whereby and whereunder
                          the respondents are issued a direction and
                          commanded to revise the merit list in
                          accordance with reservation policy and not
                          to treat the petitioner as a general class
                          candidate and extend to him the benefit of
                          SC/ST category to which the petitioner
                          belongs.
                          (iii) Issuance of any other writ/writs;
                          order/orders to give/grant relief/reliefs to
                          which the petitioner may be found entitled to
                          in the facts and circumstances of the case.”


                       3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the

          respondent -Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter

          referred to as ‘the Commission’)                   coming out        with

          Advertisement no.13010116 on 22.6.2016 for recruitment on

          the vacant post of Drivers under the State Government, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1668 of 2022 dt.23-03-2026
                                           3/6




          petitioner who belongs to the Most Backward Class (MBC)

          category applied for the same. The respondent -Commission

          however treated the petitioner under the Unreserved category,

          the petitioner was not selected and as such the instant writ

          application for the prayer as stated herein above.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for

          the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the caste of Lohar

          which was earlier under the MBC category. Referring to the

          caste certificate dated 16.8.2016, it is submitted that the caste

          Lohar was kept in Schedule-1 of MBC as also Schedule-2 of

          BC at serial no.115. Learned counsel submits that on perusal

          of the letter dated 5.9.2016 written by the Additional

          Secretary, General Administration Department, Government

          of Bihar, it would transpire that as on 8.8.2016, the caste

          Lohar had been placed under the Schedule Tribe (ST)

          category. As a result of the provisions mentioned therein,

          those categories of castes which were already under the ST

          category, their names were deleted from the Schedule-1

          attached to the EBC/MBC category. Consequently, so far as

          the petitioner’s caste of Lohar is concerned, this was also

          deleted from serial no.115 of Schedule-1 of the EBC category.

          Thereafter, the caste Lohar remains only under the Schedule
Patna High Court CWJC No.1668 of 2022 dt.23-03-2026
                                           4/6




          Tribe (ST) category.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          belonging to the Schedule Tribe category, at the time of

          counseling, the petitioner could not have produced the Non-

          Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate, which is only issued to the

          persons belonging to the MBC/EBC categories. As such it is

          submitted that the respondents be directed to treat the

          petitioner under the Schedule Tribe (ST) category, consider

          his application under the said category and publishing his

          result, to appoint him on the post to which he is entitled.

                       6. The application is opposed by learned counsel

          appearing       for   the    respondent-    Bihar   Staff   Selection

          Commission. It is submitted that from the application filled by

          the petitioner, a copy of which has been brought on record as

          Annexure-2 to the writ application, the petitioner belonging to

          the MBC category, as required by the instructions mentioned

          in the advertisement, he was required to produce the Non-

          Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate at the time of counseling. Not

          having done so, the petitioner was considered under the

          Unreserved category and not having succeeded on merit, he

          was not selected.

                       7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
Patna High Court CWJC No.1668 of 2022 dt.23-03-2026
                                           5/6




          the material on record.

                       8. On perusal of the contents of writ application, it

          transpires that the respondent-Commission came out with

          advertisement for filling up the posts of Driver in the

          Government of Bihar vide advertisement contained in

          Annexure-1. The applications were to be filled up between

          23.6.2016 and 22.7.2016. It is not in dispute that the petitioner

          filled up his application before the cut-off date and stated his

          category to be MBC (Most Backward Class). Though

          subsequently, so far as the caste of the petitioner i.e., Lohar is

          concerned, the same was removed from the list as contained in

          Schedule-I of the MBC/EBC and it remained only under the

          ST category, however there is no dispute with respect to the

          fact that this was only with effect from 8.8.2016 i.e., much

          after the last date of filling up of application in the instant case

          which was 22.7.2016.

                       9. In view of the aforesaid facts, what is also not in

          dispute is that the petitioner having applied under the MBC

          category had to be considered by the respondent- Commission

          under the said category.

                       10. On perusal of the terms of the advertisement as

          contained in Annexure-1, it transpires that the persons
            Patna High Court CWJC No.1668 of 2022 dt.23-03-2026
                                                       6/6




                      belonging to the MBC/EBC categories had to produce a Non-

                      Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate issued by the competent

                      authority within one year at the time of counseling.

                      Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the said certificate.

                      This resulted in the respondent- Commission considering the

                      application of the petitioner in the Unreserved/General

                      category and consequent to which the petitioner was not

                      finally selected.

                                    11. In view of the facts and circumstances stated

                      herein above, the Court finds no error in the action of the

                      respondent- Commission and no merit in the instant writ

                      application.

                                    12. The application is dismissed.




                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR               NAFR
CAV DATE               N/A
Uploading Date         25.03.2026
Transmission Date


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.