Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  4282   OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.29831 of  2011]  

REGISTRAR GENERAL, CALCUTTA HIGH COURT   .. APPELLANT

Versus

SHRINIVAS PRASAD SHAH AND OTHERS     .. RESPONDENTS

 J U D G M E M T  

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The question raised in this case is whether the Public Service  

Commission  of  West  Bengal  (for  short  ‘the  Commission’)  was

Page 2

2

justified in considering the application of respondent No.1 as a  

general  candidate  for  recruitment  to  the  West  Bengal  Judicial  

Service  Examination,  2007  rather  than  a  member  of  the  

Scheduled Tribe Community.

3. The  Commission  circulated  a  notification  on  17th January,  

2007 for the information to the candidates on 17th February, 2007  

of its conducting West Bengal Judicial Service Examination 2007.  

In response to the said information the respondent submitted his  

application by paying an amount of Rs.200/-, as required by the  

candidates  in  the  general  category  in  order  to  appear  for  the  

examination of 2007.  In the application form he had mentioned  

that  he  belonged  to  ‘Gonda  Community’  -  Scheduled  Tribe  

Community  and  also  attached  a  certificate  from  the  Director,  

Backward  Class  Welfare,  West  Bengal.   The  Commission  

considered  the  application  of  the  respondent  as  a  general  

candidate since he had not produced the certificate required to be  

produced from the competent  authority.   The respondent  then  

attended  preliminary  examination  and  final  examination  as  a  

general candidate.  The result of the West Bengal Judicial Service

Page 3

3

Examination 2007 was published in the newspapers on 29.9.2007  

and the respondent was shown as a general category candidate.  

Later  the  respondent  appeared  for  the  personality  test  as  a  

general  category  candidate  on  4.12.2007.   The  Commission  

published the list of 152 selected candidates on 20.3.2008 and  

the  respondent’s  name  was  rank  No.86  among  the  general  

category candidates, he could not get appointment.   

4. The  respondent  then  preferred  a  representation  on  

24.4.2008 to the Chairman of the Commission and to the various  

authorities to consider him as a member of the Scheduled Tribe  

Community and be selected in that category for the examination  

held in 2007.  Since there was no response, he filed Writ Petition  

No.9756 (W) of 2008 before the High Court of Calcutta contending  

that since his status as a Scheduled Tribe was not in question, he  

should not have been considered as a general category candidate  

especially  in  view of  the  certificate produced by him from the  

Director,  West Bengal Backward Class Welfare.  Learned Single  

Judge of the Calcutta High Court noticed that he had produced a  

certificate issued by the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West

Page 4

4

Bengal on 08.01.2003 along with the application and hence he  

should have been considered as a member of the Scheduled Tribe  

Community,  going  by  the  principle  laid  down  by  this  court  in  

Kumari  Madhuri  Patil  and  another v.   Additional  

Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (1994) 6 SCC  

241.   Learned Single  Judge therefore directed  the  Commission  

and the  High  Court  to  appoint  the  respondent  in  West  Bengal  

Judicial  Service  pursuant  to  the  examination  conducted  in  the  

year  2007  treating  him  as  a  member  of  the  Scheduled  Tribe  

Community.

5. The  Registrar  General,  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the  

learned  Single  Judge  filed  FMA  No.1217  of  2010  before  the  

Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.   The Division Bench  

also  concurred  with  the  view  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  

dismissed the appeal.  Against which the present appeal has been  

filed by the Registrar General, Calcutta High Court.

6. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

appellant submitted that the High Court has committed an error

Page 5

5

in  over-looking  the  specific  conditions  prescribed  in  the  

information to the candidates for the West Bengal Judicial Service  

Examination 2007.   Learned senior  counsel  submitted that  the  

information specifically stipulated that the caste certificate should  

be produced from a competent authority as specified in the West  

Bengal  Judicial  Service  and  STs  (Identification)  Act,  1994  and  

SCs/STs  Welfare  Department  Order  No.261-TW/EC/MR-103/94  

dated 6th April, 1995.   Further it is also pointed out that no claim  

from  a  member  of  SC/ST/BC  or  physically  handicap  would  be  

entertained after submission of the application.  Learned senior  

counsel also submitted that the Judgment of this Court in Kumari  

Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) has been misinterpreted and mis-

applied and nothing could  be spelt  out  from that  Judgment  or  

subsequent judgments diluting the conditions stipulated by the  

Commission for the examination held in the year 2007.  Learned  

senior counsel also submitted, though in the application form the  

respondent had indicated that he belonged to ST Community but  

he  did  not  produce the required certificate  as  provided in  the  

above-mentioned Act  and that  he had deposited Rs.200/-which  

was  meant  only  for  the  general  category  candidates.   The

Page 6

6

respondent sat for  the said examination as a general  category  

candidate and could not get appointment and having failed to get  

selected  he  is  estopped  from contending  that  he  should  have  

been treated as a member of the Scheduled Tribe for the 2007  

examination.   Learned senior counsel,  however,  submitted that  

later  he  has  produced  the  required  certificate  in  the  2010  

Examination  and he is  being  considered  for  appointment  as  a  

judicial officer in the West Bengal Judicial Service treating him as  

a member of the Scheduled Tribe.

7. Mr.Soumya Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent submitted that the High Court has correctly applied  

the  guidelines  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Kumari  Madhuri  

Patil’s case (supra) and also submitted that the principles laid  

down  in  that  are  binding  judicial  precedents.   Reference  was  

made to the Judgment of this Court in  GM, Indian Bank v.  R.  

Rani and another (2007) 12 SCC 796.   Learned counsel  also  

referred to the brochure published by the Government of India,  

Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  and  Pensions,  

Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi wherein it has

Page 7

7

been stated that where a candidate belonging to SC/ST is unable  

to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authority he  

might be appointed provisionally, on the basis of a prime facie  

proof, subject to his furnishing the prescribed certificate within a  

reasonable  time.   Learned  counsel  submitted  applying  the  

principle laid down by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case  

(supra) and the brochure mentioned above, learned Single Judge,  

as  well  as  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  was  right  in  

holding that the respondent be treated as a member of Scheduled  

Tribe for the 2007 Examination and be appointed accordingly.   

8. We  may  first  refer  to  the  notification  issued  by  the  

Commission (information to the candidates) for the West Bengal  

Judicial Service Examination 2007.  Earlier part of the notification  

reads as follows:

“The relevant rules and necessary  particulars  are  stated  in  the  following  paragraphs.   A  candidate  should verify from the notified rules that he/she is  eligible  for  admission  to  the  examination.   The  condition prescribed cannot be relaxed”

Page 8

8

9. The notification also refers to the particulars and certificates  

required, which reads as under:

“PARTICULARS AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED:

(i) A  candidate  claiming  to  be  SC/ST/BC  must  have  a  

certificate in support of his/her claim from a competent  

authority of West Bengal as specified below [vide the  

West Bengal SCs and STs (Identification) Act, 1994 and  

SCs, STs Welfare Department Order No.261-1W/EC/MR-

103/94 dated 06.04.1995]

(ii) In  the  District,  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  of  the  Sub-

Divisional concerned;

(iii) In Kolkata, the District Magistrate South 24-Parganas or  

such Additional District Magistrates, South 24-Parganas  

as may be authorized by the District Magistrate, South  

24-Parganas in this behalf.”

Further, the notification also states as follows:

Page 9

9

“No claim for being a member of the SC/ST and BC or  a Physically Handicapped person will be entertained  after submission of the application.”

10. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the  

Judgment  in  Kumari  Madhuri  Patil’s case  (supra),  especially  

sub-paragraph 10 of Paragraph 13 or clause 13.2 of the Chapter  

13 of the brochure would override the specific provision stipulated  

in  the  notification  (information  to  the  candidates).   The  

notification specifically stipulates that a candidate belonging to  

SC/ST/BC must have a certificate in support of his/her claim from  

a competent  authority  as  specified  under  the  West  Bengal  

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994.  

That Act was enacted by West Bengal Legislature to provide for  

identification  of  SCs  and  STs  in  West  Bengal  and  for  matters  

connected therewith or incidental thereto.  Section 4 of the Act  

deals with the identification of members of Schedule Tribe which  

reads as under:

“4.  Any person belonging to any of the tribes or tribal  communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal  communities, specified in Part XII of the Schedule to the  Constitution  (Scheduled  Tribes)  Order,  and resident  in  the locality specified in  relation to him in that  Part  of

Page 10

10

such Schedule, may be identified, by a certificate, to be  a member of the Schedule Tribe.”

Section 5 of the Act deals with the issuance of a certificate which  

reads as under:

“5.  A cerfificate under section 3 or section 4 may be issued-

(a) In  the  district,  by  the  Sub-divisional  Officer  of  the  sub- division concerned, and  

(b)  In  Calcutta, by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, or  by such Additional District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas,  as may be authorized by the District Magistrate, South 24- Parganas, in this behalf.”

Explanation I.  “Calcutta” shall mean the town of Calcutta  as defined in section 3 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866.

Explanation  II  –  For  the  removal  of  doubt,  it  is  hereby  declared  that  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act,  the  District  Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, or the Additional District  Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, authorized by the District  Magistrate,  South 24-Parganas,  under  clause (b)  of  this  section, shall have jurisdiction over Calcutta.

Section  6  of  the  Act  deals  with  the  procedure  of  issuance  of  

certificate under the Act, on application by the person requiring a

Page 11

11

certificate  under  that  Act  in  such  form and manner  and  upon  

production of such evidence, as may be prescribed.

11. Power  has  been  conferred  on  the  prescribed  authority  

under Section 7 to reject the application if it is not satisfied with  

the evidence produced by any person under Section 6 and the  

Rules  made thereunder  for  the  issuance of  a  certificate  under  

Section  5,  giving  a  person  an  opportunity  of  being  heard.  

Section 8 provides for an appeal against any refusal to issue a  

certificate.

12. We find no error in the decision taken by the Commission  

in not entertaining the respondent’s application as a ST candidate  

since no certificate was produced from the competent authority,  

as  provided  under  the  West  Bengal  Scheduled  Caste  and  

Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act,  1994.  The information to  

the candidates specifically stated that the candidates claiming to  

be SC/ST/BC must have a certificate from a competent authority  

specified  in  the  West  Bengal  Scheduled  Caste  and  Scheduled

Page 12

12

Tribes  (Identification)  Act,  1994.   No  such  certificate  was  

produced  from  that  competent  authority  by  the  respondent.  

Consequently,  in  the  absence  of  the  requisite  certificate,  the  

Commission was justified in treating him as a general category  

candidate.  The first time the respondent produced the certificate  

from the competent authority was only when he appeared in the  

examination held on 30.7.2010, by that time he had obtained a  

certificate  from  the  competent  authority  on  22.9.2009.  

Admittedly, at the time when 2007 examination was held no such  

certificate was produced from the competent authority along with  

the application.  Consequently, the respondent was treated as a  

general  category  candidate  and  hence  he  could  not  get  

appointment as judicial officer in the examination held in the year  

2007.

13. We  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  in  view  of  the  

specific legislation passed by the West Bengal State Legislature  

Assembly i.e. West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes  

(Identification)  Act,  1994,  and  the  specific  stipulation  in  the  

notification issued to the candidates, the guideline 10 of para 13

Page 13

13

of  Kumari  Madhuri  Patil’s case  (supra)  is  inapplicable,  

particularly to the facts of this case.  Act does not recognize the  

Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal as a competent  

authority to issue the certificate.  Therefore, the Commission was  

justified in not placing reliance on the certificate issued by the  

Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal.  Further clause  

13.2 of Chapter 13 of the brochure issued by the Government of  

India,  Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  and  Pensions,  

Department  of  Personnel  and  Training,  New  Delhi  is  also  in  

applicable in view of the statutory provision incorporated in the  

West  Bengal  Scheduled  Caste  and  Scheduled  Tribes  

(Identification) Act, 1994.  In this connection we may refer sub-

para  10  of  para  13  of  Kumari  Madhuri  Patil’s case  (supra)  

which reads as under:

“”In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and  in  the meanwhile the last  date for  admission into an  educational  institution  or  appointment  to  an  officer  post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by  the Principal or such other authority competent in that  behalf  or  appointed on the basis  of  the social  status  certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by  the  parent/guardian/candidate  before  the  competent  officer  or  non-official  and  such  admission  or

Page 14

14

appointment should be only provisional, subject to the  result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.”

14. Kumari  Madhuri  Patil’s case  (supra)  speaks  of  the  

constitution of a  Scrutiny Committee to resolve the dispute on  

caste  status.   When  there  is  a  dispute  with  regard  to  the  

certificate produced, there is bound to be delay in finalization of  

the proceedings, it is in that context sub-para 10 of para 13 of  

Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) stated that in case of any  

delay in finalizing the proceedings by the Scrutiny Committee and  

in  the  meanwhile  last  date  for  admission  into  an  educational  

institutions or appointment to an officer post is getting expired,  

the candidate be admitted by the principal or such other authority  

competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of social status  

certificate  already  issued  or  an  affidavit   duly  sworn  by  the  

parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or  non-

official  and  such  admission  or  appointment  should  be  only  

provisional, subject to the result of the enquiry by the Scrutiny  

Committee.  In GM, Indian Bank (supra) this Court held that the  

directions issued by the Judgment in  Kumari Madhuri Patil’s  

case (supra) would have a binding force of law.  

Page 15

15

15. We are in this case not concerned with any dispute that is  

pending before the Scrutiny Committee,  this  is  a  case of  total  

non-compliance  of  the  conditions  stipulated  in  the  notification  

(information to the candidates) wherein it  has been specifically  

stated  that  a  candidate  claiming to  be  SC/ST/BC  must  have a  

certificate in support of his/her claim from a competent authority  

specified  in  the  West  Bengal  Scheduled  Caste  and  Scheduled  

Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994.

16. In our view, the guidelines in in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s  

case (supra) or the brochure issued by the Government of India,  

Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  and  Pensions,  

Department  of  Personnel  and  Training,  New  Delhi  would  not  

override  the  specific  conditions  stipulated  in  the  notification  

(information to the candidates) of compliance of the provisions of  

the  West  Bengal  Scheduled  Caste  and  Scheduled  Tribes  

(Identification) Act, 1994.  In such circumstances we find no error  

in the decision taken by the Commission in not entertaining the

Page 16

16

application of the respondent as a member of the ST Community  

due  to  non-production  of  the  certificate  from  the  competent  

authority specified in the above-mentioned Act.

17. The appeal  is  accordingly allowed and the Judgment of  

the High Court is set aside.  However, we are inclined to record  

the submission of the learned senior counsel, appearing for the  

appellant that the respondent would be appointed as a judicial  

officer  in  the  West  Bengal  Judicial  Service  consequent  to  the  

examination conducted in the year 2010 since he has produced  

the Certificate issued by the competent authority under The West  

Bengal  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Identification)  

Act, 1994.  Appeal is, therefore, allowed as above, however there  

will be no order as to costs.

        ……………………………..J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

Page 17

17

New Delhi, May 3, 2013