Patna High Court
Aditya KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the applicant failed to comply with the advertisement's mandatory provisions and no relief can be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Aditya Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking a court order directing the Bihar Technical Service Commission to change his caste category from Scheduled Tribe (ST) to Scheduled Caste (SC) in the online application for the Junior Engineer (Civil) post and to publish his result in the SC category. He claimed the original entry of ST was a mistake, corrected it within three days, and submitted a caste certificate, but the commission treated his candidature under the General category and excluded him from the merit list. The commission opposed, citing Clause 5(viii) and Clause 14 of the advertisement, which expressly forbid any change in reservation category after submission, and relied on a prior judgment (Dr. Gangadhar Giri v. State of Bihar). The court examined the advertisement terms and the precedent, finding that the petitioner violated the stipulated conditions and that allowing the correction would set an undesirable precedent. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to intervene in the recruitment process or order any alteration of the merit list.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Technical Service Commission can be compelled to alter the caste category in the applicant's online form contrary to the advertisement's Clause 5(viii) and Clause 14.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the applicant's own mistake in filling the application.
- Whether the court can intervene and direct a change in the published merit list of a public service recruitment.
Subjects
- reservation
- caste correction
- online application
- public service commission
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- administrative law
- writ petition
- recruitment process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7900 of 2025
======================================================
Aditya Kumar S/o- Sri Chandradeo Rajak, R/v- Purandarpur, Mahavir
Mandir, P.O.- Ekangarsarai, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19- Harding Road,
Patna.
3. The Incharge Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19- Harding
Road, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19- Harding
Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Tewan, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Prashant Pratap, GP2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar
Technical Service Commission.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following reliefs:-
1. That this writ application has been
filed on behalf of the for issuance of an petitioner
writ/ writs/ order/ orders appropriate commanding/
directing the respondents to make correction from
Scheduled Tribes Category to Scheduled Caste
Category in the application form bearing
Application No.- BR001010229500001272 filled
Patna High Court CWJC No.7900 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/7
up by the petitioner by online in Advertisement
No.- 01 of 2019 published by the Bihar Technical
Service Commission, Patna for the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) 60% open category and directed
the respondents to publish the result of the
petitioner in Scheduled Caste Category in place of
General Category after quashing of the final merit
list issued by the Incharge Secretary, Bihar
Technical Service Commission, Patna vide letter
no.- 3896 dated 20.12.2024 the Annexure-10 of the
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Advertisement No.01 of 2019 has been published for the
appointment of Junior Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical)
for which petitioner has submitted his online application form,
but by mistake, the category was wrongly inserted as Scheduled
Tribe (ST) category in the form dated 07.04.2019 in place of
Scheduled Caste category. Upon realizing that wrong form has
been filled up, then the petitioner came into action just within 3
days and made correction as SC category. A copy of the caste
certificate was inserted and deposited in the office of Bihar
Technical Service Commission, Hoarding Road, Patna on
10.04.2019.
4. Counsel further submits that after filing of the
application for correction, the petitioner was called for
Patna High Court CWJC No.7900 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/7
counseling on 23.12.2020 in which petitioner has made the tick
mark correctly in the checklist form. But subsequently, the
petitioner has found that status of the candidature of the
petitioner on 27.03.2021 has been made in General category and
percentage point was given from the certificate of 49.97% and
marks of work experience was given of 25% and total combined
point was given 74.97%, but category was not considered in the
scheduled caste rather it was considered in the General category.
The petitioner has filed a representation before the authority
concerned, but no action has been taken and finally, the merit
list was published on 02.04.2022 vide letter No.636 in which
petitioner was not considered.
5. Counsel further submits that the Secretary, Bihar
Technical Service Commission was given another petition on
06.04.2022 by the petitioner and requested to correct the caste
from ST category to SC category. But the Bihar Technical
Service Commission had published the final merit list of 60%
open category of the Junior Engineer (Civil) without correction
of the caste of the petitioner vide letter No.3896 dated
20.12.2024 and the petitioner was not shown qualified as he was
treated as General category in place of SC category whereas in
the SC category, the cut off marks is 56.456%. Thereafter, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7900 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
4/7
petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the said reliefs.
6. Learned counsel for the Bihar Technical Service
Commission opposes the relief prayed in the writ petition and
submits that it is admitted by the petitioner that in the original
form, he has filled up as ST category in place of SC category.
He further submits that in the advertisement, the specific Clause
5(viii) has been mentioned in which it has been contended that
according to Memo No.16144 dated 28.11.2012 issued by
General Administration Department, the category of reservation
shall not be changed during appointment process.
7. Counsel further submits that according to Clause 14
of the said advertisement, it has already been warned that the
applicant at the time of filling-up the online form be careful as
any change in future, shall not be accepted and for any wrong,
the Commission shall not be responsible rather for any adverse
result, the applicant shall be responsible for the same.
8. Counsel further submits that inspite of the specific
direction made in paragraph 5(viii) and Clause 14 of the said
advertisement, the mistake has been done by the petitioner. He
further submits that there is no locus for the petitioner to raise
such type of correction and therefore, the present writ petition is
not maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7900 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
5/7
9. Counsel further submits that the result which has
been published in the year 2022, has already been scrapped in
the light of decision made by this Hon’ble Court and
subsequently, final result has been published in the year 2024 in
which the case of the petitioner was duly considered in the light
of his filled-up online form as ST category, but subsequently,
claim himself as SC category. It is due to this reason, his
candidature has been considered under General category. He
further submits that the petitioner got 74.97% in the said
examination, but the cut-off marks is 78.91% in the general
category.
10. In support of his argument, counsel relied on
judgment passed in case of Dr. Gangadhar Giri Vs. the State
of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No.4414 of 2024, passed on
10.02.2026 and submits that since the petitioner has not filled-
up the online form according to the guidelines made in the
advertisement and this Hon’ble Court has refused to entertain
the same and dismissed the writ petition.
11. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court
that admittedly, the petitioner at the time of filling-up the form,
has violated the terms of 5(viii) and Clause 14 of the said
advertisement and he was not cautious at the time of filling-up
Patna High Court CWJC No.7900 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
6/7
the online application form and instead of inserting SC category,
he has inserted ST category and there is special warning in those
clauses which states as follows:-
5. आरकणः-
viii) सामानय iz”kklu ववभाग के जापांक-
16144, वदनांक- 28.11.2012 के आलोक मे वनयु वकक
izfdz;k के बीच आरकण कोवट मे सु धार/बदलाव नहीं
वकया जा सकका है ।
14. आवे दक दारा ऑनलाइन आवे दन मे
सभी izfof’V;k¡ सावधानी से भरी जाये गी। भववषय मे
आवे दन मे वकसी izdkj का पवरवकरन/सु धार मानय नहीं
होगा। वकसी भी izdkj की =qfV हे कु आयोग उतरदायी
नहीं होगा एवं कोई भी izfrdwy पवरणाम हे कु आवे दक
सवयं वजममे वार होगे ।
12. Upon perusal of the said judgment on which
counsel relied in the case of Dr. Gangadhar Giri (supra)
whose Paragraphs 14 and 15, are relevant to quote which states
as follows:-
14. Upon the basis of the discussions
made, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner
has not filled up his application form in the light of
advertisement and granting relaxation to the
petitioner in the present case shall definitely create
a problem in future, as, such type of mistake shall
open a Pandora box for the Commission and a
fresh litigation will be started.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the firm
Patna High Court CWJC No.7900 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
7/7
view that the application of the petitioner was not
filled up as per Clause 5(iv), 5(viii) and 14 of the
advertisement and in the light of judgments
rendered in case of Chandni Kumari (supra) &
Bedanga Talukdar (supra) mentioned above, such
change shall not be permissible. Hence, this writ
petition stands dismissed.
13. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that the
petitioner was reluctant at the time of submitting his application
form about which a clear cut instruction was made in the
advertisement. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere,
and hence, dismiss the present writ petition.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.