“Non-existent technicalities” cannot cost a Scheduled Caste doctor her place, the Patna High Court has said, holding that a caste certificate bearing her husband’s name in place of her father’s is no ground to push her into the general category.
Patna: The Patna High Court has upheld a Single Judge’s direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to consider a Scheduled Caste doctor for appointment as Assistant Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology under the SC category, holding that her candidature could not be rejected on “non-existent technicalities” when nobody disputed that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste [Bihar Public Service Commission and Another v. Dr. Sushma Sharan and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Sourendra Pandey dismissed LPA No. 472 of 2023 on October 30, 2026, with Justice Mohit Kumar Shah writing the judgment. The appeal challenged the Single Judge’s judgment of February 14, 2023 in CWJC No. 18940 of 2019.
Nothing in the advertisement required a father’s name
The Division Bench answered the central question, whether naming the husband instead of the father in the certificate meant consideration as unreserved, in the negative. It held that nothing in the advertisement required an SC candidate’s certificate to carry her father’s name rather than a married woman’s husband’s name.
On the certificate’s source, the Bench noted that BPSC did not dispute that the Sub-divisional Officer who issued the 2006 certificate outranks the Circle Officer. Citing the Full Bench ruling in Braj Kishore Prasad, it said writ courts may grant relief in deserving cases.
“It is a well-settled law that a certificate issued by the competent authority regarding a person belonging to a scheduled caste category by birth is only an affirmation of the fact which is already in existence.”
Pointing to Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and the purpose of reservation, the Bench noted that BPSC did not deny that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste and held that her candidature “could not have been rejected as a scheduled caste category candidate merely on the ground of non-existent technicalities/reasons.” Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s judgment, it dismissed the appeal.
The advertisement and the application
BPSC’s Advertisement No. 20 of 2017 invited applications for 74 Assistant Professor posts in medical colleges and hospitals, of which 13 were reserved for SC candidates and five of those for women. Dr. Sushma Sharan, daughter of the late M.C. Ram, applied under the SC category with a caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer on August 2, 2006. Her application was accepted, she was interviewed on February 28, 2018 and her original documents were verified. When results for 37 candidates were published on August 8, 2019, her name was not in the SC list.
The Commission’s stand
The Commission said she had been considered in the unreserved category, where her merit was lower, because her certificate carried her husband’s name instead of her father’s. It said it had published notices in July 2018 giving married women in reserved categories one chance to submit corrected certificates, failing which they would be treated as unreserved. She later obtained a certificate from the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, dated August 17, 2019, naming her father.
The Single Judge’s ruling
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Aarav Jain v. Bihar Public Service Commission, which involved a woman candidate in the same situation, and on Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, the Single Judge held that an SC candidate cannot be forced into the general category and directed BPSC to consider her on merit under the SC category, with appointment from the date persons of lower merit were appointed.
What the judgment signals
Caste is a status a person holds by birth; a certificate only records it. The ruling holds that recruiting bodies cannot strip a reserved-category candidate of that status over a format requirement the advertisement never imposed, particularly where the caste itself is not in doubt and a certificate from a higher-ranking officer is on file.
The decision is of particular relevance to married women in reserved categories, whose certificates often carry a husband’s name. Read with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Aarav Jain, it signals that a curable defect in documentary proof should not cost a candidate a post she has earned on merit within her category.
Case Title: Bihar Public Service Commission and Another v. Dr. Sushma Sharan and Others
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 472 of 2023 in CWJC No. 18940 of 2019
Bench: Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Sourendra Pandey, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Kaushal Kumar Jha and Amish Kumar, Advocates, for BPSC; Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, with P.N. Pathak, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1; Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9, for the State