SHYAM NANDAN MEHTAversusSANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 586

                          Shyam Nandan Mehta
                                   v.
                          Santosh Kumar & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 5679 of 2025)
                                 29 April 2025
           [Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High
       Courts declaring the appointment of appellant to be illegal making
       him liable to be terminated from service forthwith.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service law – Appointment – Recruitment process – Allegation of
       manipulation in the recruitment process – Appellant appointed
       to the post of assistant teacher – Two years thereafter, writ
       petition by first respondent alleging that the appointment of the
       appellant based on manipulation in TET examination certificate
       wherein he showed his caste status under Most Backward
       Class (MBC) category whereas in the selection process he
       showed himself to be Backward Class (BC) category – Writ
       petition allowed holding that the first respondent committed
       manipulation in procuring the TET certificate – Correctness:
       Held: Instant case is not where there is any allegation against the
       appellant either by the Academic Council or by recruiting agency that
       the appellant has fraudulently declared his caste status as ‘MBC’
       though he actually belongs to ‘BC’ – Appellant secured more marks
       than respondent no.1 – He did not obtain any weightage of marks
       or relaxation by claiming to be belonging to ‘BC’ category which is
       his actual caste category – Genuineness of his caste certificate is
       also not questioned – No evidence that the appellant committed
       any manipulation in the recruitment process – Appellant has not
       submitted any incorrect information at the time of counselling –
       Recruiting agency has not cancelled appellant’s appointment on
       the allegation of submitting incorrect information – It is for the
       recruiting agency to take action against any candidate if incorrect
       information is supplied – Same cannot be made a foundation for
       allowing the writ petition when the said information does not affect
* Author
2074                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     the candidate’s eligibility to appear in the examination – Not a case
     of submission of false certificates of qualifying examination or a
     false caste certificate – High Court wrongly set aside the appellant’s
     appointment – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 10-12]

                              List of Keywords
     Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher; Assistant teacher;
     Manipulation in TET examination certificate; Caste status; Most
     Backward Class; Backward Class; Manipulation and illegality in the
     selection process; Manipulation in procuring TET certificate; Illegal
     appointment; Fraudulently declaring caste status; Genuineness of
     class certificate; Duty on applicant to provide correct information;
     Recruiting agency; False caste certificate.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5679 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2022 of the High Court
     of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 103 of 2021

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Himanshu Chaubey, Naveen Soni.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Amit Sharma, Ravi Kumar, Yuvraj Nangia,
     Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, Jayant Mohan, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta,
     Jayesh Gaurav, Ishwar Chandra Roy, Ms. Diksha Ojha, Ranjan
     Nikhil Dharnidhar, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Amit Pawan, Hassan
     Zubair Waris, Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Ms. Shivangi Singh Rawat,
     Suchit Singh Rawat, Kuldeep Mishra.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The appellant would call in question the impugned judgment dated
     10.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        2075

                 Shyam Nandan Mehta v. Santosh Kumar & Ors.


      Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing his Letter Patent Appeal affirming
      the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
      declaring the appointment of the appellant to be illegal making him
      liable to be terminated from service forthwith and directed the State to
      conclude the verification of the relevant documents of the concerned
      for consideration of the writ petitioner’s case for appointment on the
      post of Assistant Teacher.
3.    The issue relates to the appointment on the post of Intermediate
      Trained Assistant Teacher1 for the district of Palamau consequent
      to Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 dated 04.07.2015. At the
      end of selection process, the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 herein,
      secured 65.496 marks whereas the appellant/respondent no. 7 in
      the writ petition secured 68.125 marks. Thus, on the strength of his
      merit position, the appellant was declared successful and appointed
      as Assistant Teacher.
4.    After two years from the date of appointment of the appellant, a
      writ petition was preferred by the first respondent inter alia alleging
      that the appointment of the appellant/respondent no. 7 is based on
      manipulation in TET examination certificate wherein he has shown his
      caste status under Most Backward Class2 (MBC) category whereas
      in the selection process he has shown himself to be Backward
      Class3(BC) category. In respect of other respondent nos. 8 to 10
      (in the writ petition) it was stated that even though they have been
      appointed under handicapped category, yet their appointment also
      suffers from manipulation and illegality done in the selection process.
5.    The selected candidates contested the writ petition by raising the
      defence inter alia that respondent no. 7 (appellant herein) belongs
      to BC-II category as is evident from the caste certificate dated
      03.02.2001 but due to inadvertent mistake his category has been
      mentioned as ‘MBC’ in the TET certificate issued by the Jharkhand
      Academic Council4 and that the appellant is positioned ahead of the
      writ petitioner/respondent no.1 having secured more marks than him


1    “Assistant Teacher”
2    ‘MBC’
3    ‘BC’
4    ‘JAC’
2076                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     in the selection process. According to the appellant/respondent no. 7,
     the advertisement would make it evident that the vacancy position
     under the ‘BC’ category is less in number when compared with ‘MBC’
     category, therefore, respondent no. 1 has not derived any benefit due
     to the discrepancy in mentioning ‘MBC’ in the certificate issued by
     the JAC and ‘BC’ category in which the petitioner/respondent no. 1
     appeared in the selection process.
     In respect of other private respondents arrayed as respondent
     nos.9,10 & 11 herein (respondent nos. 8,9 & 10 in the writ petition) it
     was submitted that they were appointed under handicapped category
     and that they are fully eligible for appointment in the category in
     which they have applied and selected on their own merit.
6.   The Writ Court allowed the writ petition, and the Division Bench
     affirmed the order on the ground that the 1st respondent has committed
     manipulation in procuring the TET certificate showing himself to be
     the member of ‘MBC’ category while offering his candidature in the
     selection process as ‘BC’ category and secured appointment. The
     appointment of other private respondents has been set aside on the
     ground that respondent no. 8 (Vijay Kumar Gupta) has appeared in
     the TET examination as a non-handicapped candidate whereas in
     the selection process he has been selected under the handicapped
     category, therefore, his appointment is illegal.
7.   Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned
     senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
     appellant committed unintentional error by mentioning his caste as
     ‘MBC’ instead of ‘BC’ while submitting the form for TET examination
     in the year 2012. The same occurred due to bifurcation of ‘OBC’ into
     ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ by the State Government. It is also submitted that
     the appellant had correctly submitted the TET certificate indicating
     ‘MBC’ as his category. It is further argued that the TET certificate
     confirms the candidate’s eligibility for applying for teaching posts
     and is not intended to determine caste-based reservation benefits or
     categorization. It is strenuously argued that in the subject recruitment,
     more number of posts were advertised for ‘MBC’ category whereas
     the appellant being a ‘BC’, applied in this category to compete for
     lesser number of vacancies. Thus, the appellant has never tried or
     succeeded in gaining undeserving benefit in the selection process.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      2077

             Shyam Nandan Mehta v. Santosh Kumar & Ors.


     It is lastly submitted that having been appointed in the year 2015
     the appellant is continuously working, therefore, he being more
     meritorious than the first respondent/writ petitioner, the impugned
     order deserves to be set aside.
8.   Per contra, Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing for
     respondent no. 1/writ petitioner would submit that the appellant
     obtained ’OBC’ certificate on 03.02.2001 and revised caste certificate
     was issued in his favour for Backward Class on 14.12.2013 whereas
     in the TET examination he appeared as ‘MBC’ candidate, therefore,
     there is clear contradiction and manipulation in his TET certificate
     which is a necessary qualification for appointment, therefore, the
     Writ Court has righty set aside the appellant’s appointment. It is
     the specific stand of the first respondent in the note submitted
     before this Court that the National Council for Teacher Education’s
     guidelines of conducting TET examination dated 11.02.2011 do not
     prescribe annexing the caste certificate. Thus, the appellant’s act of
     mentioning his caste ‘MBC’ in the TET application form is his own
     declaration. Thus, the appellant had claimed to belong to different
     category in two different examinations evidencing manipulation in
     the recruitment process.
9.   Learned counsel for JAC (respondent no. 8) has submitted that once
     the appellant obtained TET certificate under a particular category,
     he is not permitted to change his category without correction of
     TET certificate. It is submitted that same cutoff marks in the TET
     examination for ‘BC’ & ‘MBC’ for the subject TET examination of 2012
     would hardly make any difference for the reason that ‘MBC’ category
     is a more privileged class than the ’BC’ category. The appellant with
     an eye over privileges available to ‘MBC’ category cleared TET
     examination as ‘MBC’ candidate and has secured appointment as
     ‘BC’ candidate which is wholly impermissible.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
    the record, particularly, the original record of the subject recruitment
    consisting of appellant’s application and the documents annexed
    thereto. The record contains three photo copies of TET certificates
    produced by the appellant out of which two certificates mention his
    category as ‘MBC’ whereas one photocopy mentions his category as
    ‘BC’. The record also contains the caste certificate dated 14.12.2013
2078                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     in which the appellant is declared to be belonging to ‘BC’ category.
     The original certificates were produced at the time of counselling.
     The present is not a case where there is any allegation against
     the appellant either by the JAC or by the recruiting agency that the
     appellant has fraudulently declared his caste status as ‘MBC’ though
     he actually belongs to ‘BC’. It is an admitted position that neither
     at the time of TET examination nor in the present recruitment, the
     appellant has secured undue advantage or favour by showing his
     caste status as ‘MBC’ or ‘BC’ as the case may be. It is also an
     admitted position as mentioned in para 7 of the written submissions of
     JAC (respondent no. 8) that in the relevant year the cutoff marks for
     clearing TET examination were same for ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ categories.
     Likewise in the present recruitment the appellant has secured more
     marks than respondent no.1 (writ petitioner). He has not obtained any
     weightage of marks or relaxation by claiming to be belonging to ‘BC’
     category which is his actual caste category. The genuineness of his
     caste certificate is also not questioned by any of the respondents.
11. The writ petition was preferred on the allegation that the appellant
    has committed manipulation. However, there is no evidence that
    the appellant has committed any manipulation in the present
    recruitment process. The Division Bench has not gone into the issue
    of manipulation, but the impugned judgment is founded on Clause
    20 of the advertisement which imposed a duty on the applicant
    to provide correct information. It is not the case of the recruiting
    agency that the appellant has submitted any incorrect information
    while submitting his application form in the present recruitment. The
    original record contains the photocopies of the TET examination
    certificate submitted by the appellant and the original of which was
    submitted at the time of counselling. Thus, the appellant has not
    submitted any incorrect information at the time of counselling. The
    recruiting agency has not cancelled the appellant’s appointment
    on the allegation of submitting incorrect information. It is for the
    recruiting agency to take action against any candidate if incorrect
    information is supplied. The same cannot be made a foundation
    for allowing the writ petition when the said information does not
    affect the candidate’s eligibility to appear in the examination. The
    present is not a case of submission of false certificates of qualifying
    examination or a false caste certificate.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                 2079

                Shyam Nandan Mehta v. Santosh Kumar & Ors.


12. Thus, in our considered view, the High Court has wrongly set aside
    the appellant’s appointment. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and
    set aside the impugned order.
     No order as to cost.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain