The Supreme Court of India has ruled that incorrect information supplied by a candidate, which does not impact their eligibility to appear for an examination, cannot be used as a ground to cancel their appointment. The Court allowed the appeal filed by Shyam Nandan Mehta, setting aside the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had declared his appointment as Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher illegal.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7418 of 2022, titled Shyam Nandan Mehta vs Santosh Kumar & Others.
Background
The case concerned the selection process for the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher in Palamau District, pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/Palamau/2015 dated 4 July 2015. Shyam Nandan Mehta (the appellant) had secured 68.125 marks, while Santosh Kumar (the writ petitioner and respondent no. 1) had secured 65.496 marks. Accordingly, the appellant was declared successful and appointed.
Nearly two years after the appointment, Santosh Kumar filed a writ petition alleging manipulation by the appellant in his Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate, asserting that the appellant declared himself as belonging to the Most Backward Class (MBC) category in the TET examination, while applying in the selection process under the Backward Class (BC) category.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant contended that the error in mentioning his caste as “MBC” in the TET certificate was inadvertent, arising from the bifurcation of Other Backward Class (OBC) into BC and MBC categories by the State Government. He argued that he had correctly declared his actual caste as BC during the recruitment process and had secured more marks than the writ petitioner.
It was further argued that the Teacher Eligibility Test certificate was meant only to confirm eligibility to apply for teaching posts and not for determining caste-based reservations. The appellant emphasized that he had not derived any undeserved advantage through the discrepancy.
On the other hand, the respondent maintained that the appellant’s declaration under different caste categories in different stages amounted to manipulation. It was submitted that the appellant had claimed benefits under a different category during the TET examination and thus his appointment was illegal.
The Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC) supported the respondent’s arguments, stating that once a candidate obtained a TET certificate under a particular category, they could not change it without correction of the certificate.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined the original records, including the appellant’s TET certificates and caste certificate. It noted that while there were discrepancies in the TET certificates — two showing the caste as MBC and one as BC — the appellant’s caste certificate issued on 14 December 2013 confirmed that he belonged to the BC category.
The Bench observed:
“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’.”
Importantly, the Court highlighted that:
“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 Court noted that the cut-off marks for BC and MBC candidates in the relevant TET examination year were identical and that the appellant had not gained any advantage nor sought relaxation based on a wrong caste declaration. It further stated that there was no evidence of manipulation in the recruitment process.
Decision
Concluding that the High Court erred in setting aside the appellant’s appointment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the appellant’s appointment. The Court ruled:
“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 costs was made.
