Appointment Cannot Be Set Aside For Inadvertent Category Mismatch Absent Evidence Of Manipulation

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal arising out of challenges to appointments made under Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 for the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher, and examined whether a discrepancy between the category shown in a TET certificate and the candidate’s caste certificate amounted to manipulation warranting setting aside the appointment.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court and reinstated the appellant’s appointment, holding that there was no evidence of manipulation or of any incorrect information being supplied that affected eligibility. The Court recorded that the appellant had secured higher marks than the writ petitioner and that the genuineness of his caste certificate was not questioned. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court noted that “neither at the time of TET examination nor in the present recruitment, the appellant has secured undue advantage,” and recorded “no order as to costs.”

Background The dispute arose after recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher for Palamau: the appellant secured 68.125 marks and was declared successful, while the writ petitioner secured 65.496 marks. A writ petition challenged the appellant’s appointment on the ground that his TET certificate recorded his category as Most Backward Class (MBC) whereas his caste certificate and the application in the recruitment identified him as Backward Class (BC), alleging manipulation to procure appointment. The High Court allowed the writ petition and the Division Bench affirmed, concluding that the discrepancy amounted to manipulation; appointments of some other selected candidates were also set aside on related grounds.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel submitted that the mismatch arose from an inadvertent error following bifurcation of OBC into BC and MBC categories and that the appellant never derived any benefit from the discrepancy because the vacancy position and cut-off marks did not produce any advantage; he also pointed out that the TET guidelines did not require annexing a caste certificate. The writ petitioner relied on the TET application as the candidate’s own declaration and contended that the inconsistent category entries evidenced manipulation. The Jharkhand Academic Council accepted that a TET certificate, once issued under a category, could not be changed without correction.

On review of the original recruitment record the Supreme Court found photocopies of TET certificates showing both entries and the original caste certificate; the genuineness of the caste certificate was not contested. The Court emphasised that the recruiting agency had not cancelled the appointment or alleged that incorrect information had been supplied in the recruitment application, and that the cut-off marks for BC and MBC at the relevant time were the same. Applying these facts, the Court held that the discrepancy did not amount to submission of false qualifying or caste certificates nor did it confer an undeserved advantage. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order was set aside; there were no interim directions recorded and the Court imposed no costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 586; Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7418 of 2022 Case Title: Shyam Nandan Mehta v. Santosh Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, Senior Counsel (for respondent no.1); Counsel for Jharkhand Academic Council (respondent no.8) noted in the record (name not specified)