SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA Versus SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.

---

1. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). __ OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 7418 of 2022)
(The document does not provide the specific assigned Civil Appeal number for 2025, only the SLP number from which it arises. The blank for appeal number is as per the original document.)

2. Case Title: SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA Versus SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.

3. Headnote: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court which had affirmed the Single Judge’s order declaring the appellant’s appointment as an Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher illegal. The allegation was that the appellant had shown ‘MBC’ (Most Backward Class) in his TET certificate but applied under ‘BC’ (Backward Class) category for the appointment. The Court found no evidence of manipulation by the appellant in the recruitment process. It was noted that the appellant actually belonged to the ‘BC’ category, his caste certificate was genuine, and he had secured more marks than the writ petitioner (Respondent No. 1). Crucially, the appellant gained no undue advantage or favour, as the cutoff marks for TET were the same for ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’, and he did not receive any weightage or relaxation by claiming ‘BC’ status. The discrepancy in the TET certificate regarding category (MBC vs. BC) did not affect his eligibility or result in any undeserved benefit. The High Court’s reliance on Clause 20 of the advertisement (duty to provide correct information) was misplaced as the recruiting agency had not cancelled the appointment on this ground, and the information did not affect eligibility. This was not a case of submitting a false qualifying certificate or a false caste certificate.

4. Background and Facts:
The case concerns the appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher for Palamau district, pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 dated 04.07.2015. The appellant (Shyam Nandan Mehta, Respondent No. 7 in the writ petition) secured 68.125 marks and was appointed. The writ petitioner (Santosh Kumar, Respondent No. 1 herein) secured 65.496 marks.
Two years after the appellant’s appointment, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition alleging that the appellant’s appointment was based on manipulation in the TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) examination certificate, where he showed his caste as ‘MBC’ (Most Backward Class), while in the selection process for Assistant Teacher, he showed himself as ‘BC’ (Backward Class).
The appellant contended that he belongs to the BC-II category (as per caste certificate dated 03.02.2001, later revised on 14.12.2013 for ‘BC’), and the ‘MBC’ mention in the TET certificate (issued by Jharkhand Academic Council – JAC) was an inadvertent mistake. He argued he secured more marks than the writ petitioner and that the vacancy for ‘BC’ was less than ‘MBC’, so he gained no advantage.
The Writ Court allowed the petition, and the Division Bench affirmed this, finding manipulation by the appellant in procuring the TET certificate as ‘MBC’ while applying for the job as ‘BC’.

5. Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

6. Type: Judgment

7. SCR Citation: not mentioned

8. Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 586

9. Judgment Authored by: Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra*

10. Date of Judgment: April 29, 2025

11. Case Start Date: 2022 (Year of filing of SLP(C) No. 7418 of 2022. Leave granted on April 29, 2025, as mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment).

12. Case Arising From:
The appeal challenged the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. This judgment dismissed the appellant’s Letter Patent Appeal, thereby affirming the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had declared the appellant’s appointment as an Assistant Teacher illegal, making him liable for termination, and directed the State to verify documents for considering the writ petitioner’s case for appointment.

13. Parties Involved:

• Appellant: SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA
• Respondents: SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. (Santosh Kumar was the original writ petitioner)

14. Disposal Nature: Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.

15. Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL (Arising out of SLP(C))

16. Law Type: Service Law, Education Law, Constitutional Law (Reservation).

17. Judges (Assent/Dissent):

• Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta (Assented)
• Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (Authored the judgment, Assented)
  No dissenting opinions were recorded.

18. Procedural History:

• Lower Court Decisions:
  • Single Judge, High Court of Jharkhand (22.02.2021): Allowed the writ petition, declared appellant’s appointment illegal.
  • Division Bench, High Court of Jharkhand (10.02.2022): Dismissed appellant’s Letter Patent Appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order.
• Appeals:
  • SLP(C) No. 7418 of 2022 filed before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench’s order. Leave granted and converted to Civil Appeal.
  • The Supreme Court allowed this appeal.

19. Issues Framed:
The central issue considered by the Supreme Court was:

• Whether the appellant’s appointment as Assistant Teacher was illegal due to the discrepancy in his caste category mentioned in the TET certificate (‘MBC’) versus the category claimed in the selection process (‘BC’), and whether this amounted to manipulation warranting cancellation of appointment, especially when no undue advantage was gained. (Inferred from paras 3, 4, 6, 10, 11).

20. Cases Cited:

• Cited by Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff: None mentioned in the judgment.
• Cited by Respondent/Defendant: None mentioned in the judgment.

21. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:

• Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 dated 04.07.2015: The advertisement for the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher. (Para 3, Page 2)
  • Clause 20: Imposed a duty on the applicant to provide correct information. (Para 11, Page 9)
    • Context: The Division Bench’s judgment was founded on this clause. The Supreme Court found this reliance misplaced in the circumstances of the case.
• National Council for Teacher Education’s guidelines of conducting TET examination dated 11.02.2011: Mentioned by Respondent No. 1 as not prescribing annexing the caste certificate for TET. (Para 8, Page 6)
  • Context: Argued by Respondent No. 1 to show that mentioning caste in TET form was appellant’s own declaration.

22. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case:

• Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 dated 04.07.2015 (and its clauses).
• Rules/Guidelines governing TET examination and teacher recruitment in Jharkhand.

23. Literature Citation:

• Cited by Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff: []
• Cited by Respondent/Defendant: []

24. Appearances:

• Advocates:
  • For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel. (Para 7, Page 5)
  • For Respondent No. 1/Writ Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel. (Para 8, Page 6)
  • For JAC (Respondent No. 8): Learned counsel (name not specified). (Para 9, Page 7)
• Witnesses: NA
• Other Persons: NA

25. Legal Jargons and Maxims:

• Inter alia: Among other things. (Para 4, Page 2; Para 5, Page 3)
• Per contra: On the other hand; by way of contrast. (Para 8, Page 6)
• Letter Patent Appeal (LPA): An appeal from a decision of a single judge of a High Court to a division bench of the same High Court.

26. Exhibits:

• TET examination certificates: Three photocopies produced by the appellant; two mentioned ‘MBC’ category, one mentioned ‘BC’ category. Original submitted at counselling. (Para 10, Page 7; Para 11, Page 9)
• Caste certificate dated 03.02.2001: Showed appellant as ‘OBC’. (Para 5, Page 3; Para 8, Page 6)
• Caste certificate dated 14.12.2013: Declared appellant as belonging to ‘BC’ category. (Para 8, Page 6; Para 10, Page 8)
  • Context: These documents were central to the dispute regarding the appellant’s correct caste category and the alleged discrepancy.

27. Prayer:
The appellant’s prayer before the Supreme Court was to set aside the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, which had dismissed his Letter Patent Appeal and affirmed the order setting aside his appointment. (Inferred from Para 2, Page 1 and Para 7, Page 6).

28. Evidence & Findings:

• Evidence Type: Recruitment Records (Appellant’s application, TET certificates, Caste certificate)
  • Description: Original record of subject recruitment. Three photocopies of TET certificates (two ‘MBC’, one ‘BC’). Caste certificate dated 14.12.2013 showing ‘BC’ category.
  • Findings:
    • No allegation by JAC or recruiting agency that appellant fraudulently declared caste as ‘MBC’ though actually ‘BC’. (Para 10, Page 8)
    • Appellant secured no undue advantage or favour in TET or present recruitment due to caste status discrepancy. (Para 10, Page 8)
    • Cutoff marks for TET in the relevant year were same for ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’. (Para 10, Page 8, based on JAC’s submission)
    • Appellant secured more marks than Respondent No. 1 in the recruitment. (Para 10, Page 8)
    • Appellant did not obtain any weightage or relaxation by claiming ‘BC’ (his actual caste). (Para 10, Page 8)
    • Genuineness of appellant’s ‘BC’ caste certificate (14.12.2013) not questioned. (Para 10, Page 8)
    • No evidence appellant committed any manipulation in the present recruitment process. (Para 11, Page 9)
    • Appellant submitted photocopies of TET certificate and original at counselling; no incorrect information submitted in the application form for the present recruitment. (Para 11, Page 9)
    • This is not a case of submission of false qualifying certificates or a false caste certificate. (Para 11, Page 10)

29. Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments:
(Summarized from Para 7, Pages 5-6)

• The appellant committed an unintentional error by mentioning his caste as ‘MBC’ instead of ‘BC’ in the TET examination form in 2012, due to bifurcation of ‘OBC’ into ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ by the State Government.
• He correctly submitted the TET certificate indicating ‘MBC’ as his category for the appointment.
• The TET certificate only confirms eligibility for teaching posts, not caste-based reservation benefits.
• In the recruitment, more posts were advertised for ‘MBC’ category; appellant, being ‘BC’, applied in this category (BC) to compete for fewer vacancies.
• The appellant never tried or succeeded in gaining undeserving benefit.
• Having been appointed in 2015 and continuously working, and being more meritorious than the writ petitioner, the impugned order setting aside his appointment deserves to be quashed.

30. Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments:

• Respondent No. 1 (Writ Petitioner – Santosh Kumar): (Summarized from Para 8, Page 6)
  • Appellant obtained ‘OBC’ certificate on 03.02.2001 and revised ‘BC’ certificate on 14.12.2013.
  • In TET, he appeared as ‘MBC’ candidate, showing clear contradiction and manipulation in the TET certificate (a necessary qualification).
  • NCTE guidelines for TET (11.02.2011) don’t require annexing caste certificate, so appellant’s ‘MBC’ mention in TET form was his own declaration.
  • Appellant claimed different categories in two different examinations, evidencing manipulation.
• JAC (Respondent No. 8): (Summarized from Para 9, Page 7)
  • Once appellant obtained TET certificate under a particular category, he cannot change it without correction.
  • Same cutoff marks in TET 2012 for ‘BC’ & ‘MBC’ hardly makes a difference, as ‘MBC’ is a more privileged class than ‘BC’.
  • Appellant, eyeing privileges of ‘MBC’, cleared TET as ‘MBC’ and secured appointment as ‘BC’, which is impermissible.

31. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s orders was based on the following:

• No Undue Advantage: The appellant did not secure any undue advantage or favour either in the TET examination or in the actual recruitment process due to the discrepancy in mentioning his caste category. The cutoff marks for TET were the same for ‘MBC’ and ‘BC’, and he gained no weightage or relaxation by claiming his actual ‘BC’ status in the recruitment. (Para 10, Page 8)
• No Manipulation in Current Recruitment: There was no evidence that the appellant committed any manipulation in the present recruitment process. He submitted the required documents, including the TET certificate and his genuine caste certificate, at the time of counselling. (Para 11, Page 9)
• Authenticity of Caste: The appellant genuinely belongs to the ‘BC’ category, and the authenticity of his caste certificate was not questioned. (Para 10, Page 8)
• Eligibility Unaffected: The discrepancy in the TET certificate regarding the sub-category did not affect the appellant’s fundamental eligibility to appear in the examination or the recruitment. (Para 11, Page 9)
• Recruiting Agency’s Stance: The recruiting agency itself had not cancelled the appellant’s appointment on the grounds of submitting incorrect information. It is for the agency to act if incorrect information is supplied, but this cannot be a foundation for allowing a writ petition when eligibility is not affected. (Para 11, Page 9)
• Not a Case of False Certificates: This was not a situation involving the submission of a false qualifying examination certificate or a false caste certificate. The issue was a discrepancy in sub-category mention which had no material bearing on the outcome or fairness of the selection process concerning the appellant. (Para 11, Page 10)

32. Final Decision:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2022 of the Division Bench and the order dated 22.02.2021 of the Single Judge are set aside. No order as to cost. (Para 12, Page 10)

33. Timeline:

• 03.02.2001: Appellant obtained ‘OBC’ certificate. (Para 5, Page 3; Para 8, Page 6)
• 2012: Appellant submitted form for TET examination, mentioning ‘MBC’ category. (Para 7, Page 5)
• 14.12.2013: Revised caste certificate issued to appellant for ‘BC’ category. (Para 8, Page 6; Para 10, Page 8)
• 04.07.2015: Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 for Assistant Teacher post issued. (Para 3, Page 2)
• 2015: Appellant appointed as Assistant Teacher. (Para 7, Page 5)
• (Approximately 2017): Writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 (two years after appellant’s appointment). (Para 4, Page 2)
• 22.02.2021: Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court declared appellant’s appointment illegal. (Para 2, Page 1)
• 10.02.2022: Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court dismissed appellant’s Letter Patent Appeal. (Para 2, Page 1)
• 2022: SLP(C) No. 7418 of 2022 filed in Supreme Court. (Page 1)
• April 29, 2025: Supreme Court delivered this judgment. (Page 10)