SANJU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit filed on behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, wherein it is stated that Jharkhand Public Service Commission has published result with condition that appointment letters will be issued to selected candidates only after verification of their testimonials i.e. academic, training, district option and caste certificated furnished by the candidates. It is further stated that Department of Education, Govt, of Jharkhand had issued guidelines for verification of documents/ testimonials of selected candidates before issuance of appointment letters. Respondent no.4 (District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro) has filed a separate counter affidavit, wherein he stated that petitioner was selected in the category of Schedule Caste for the district of Bokaro. He further stated that inspite of notice, petitioner did not produce her caste and residential certificate for verification. To substantiate this fact respondent no.4 relied on Annexure -4, annexed With writ application It is further stated that petitioner on later stage filed a caste certificate issued in favour of one Rajendra Rajak saying that said. Rajendra Rajak is net husband and he is resident of Kargali, Bermo, district Bokaro. However, she did not produce her own caste certificate issued by any competent authority. Accordingly, it is stated that petitioner is not entitled for appointment.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel No. III and Sri Sajnay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, submitted that result of the petitioner published subject to the condition that she will produce all the documents including caste certificate and residential certificate for verification before issuance of appointment letter. They further submitted that from Annexure -4, it is clear that petitioner did not produce residential and caste certificates. Accordingly, they submitted that petitioner is not entitled for appointment.