Caste certificate with husband name no ground for quota denial: Patna HC

Division bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Sourendra Pandey, in an order dated October 30, upheld a single judge’s February 14, 2023, direction to the BPSC to consider Dr Sushma Sharan for appointment as assistant professor of obstetrics and gynaecology under the scheduled caste (SC) category

A married woman cannot be denied caste-based reservation merely because her caste certificate mentions her husband’s name instead of her father’s, the Patna high court has ruled, dismissing a Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) appeal against the candidature of an SC woman.

Patna high court

A division bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Sourendra Pandey, in an order dated October 30, upheld a single judge’s February 14, 2023, direction to the BPSC to consider Dr Sushma Sharan for appointment as assistant professor of obstetrics and gynaecology under the scheduled caste (SC) category.

The bench said the commission could not reject her reserved-category candidature on “non-existent technicalities/reasons”, particularly when her SC status was undisputed. Caste is determined by birth and a woman does not lose her caste identity after marriage, it observed. In this case, the petitioner’s father and husband both came under the SC category.

The court held that a caste certificate issued by a competent authority merely confirms a person’s existing status. Mentioning the husband’s name instead of the father’s does not invalidate the certificate or justify shifting the candidate to the unreserved category.

Sharan applied under the SC category with a caste certificate issued by the sub-divisional officer, Patna Sadar, on August 2, 2006, mentioning her husband’s name. She was called for an interview on February 28, 2018, and her original documents were verified. However, her name did not figure in the SC category when results were declared on August 8, 2019.

During document verification, the BPSC found that some married women candidates had submitted caste or non-creamy layer certificates carrying their husbands’ names instead of their fathers’. It issued notices in July 2018, asking them to submit corrected certificates, failing which they would be considered under the unreserved category.

Sharan was shifted to the unreserved category, where she fell short of the cut-off. The BPSC said she had scored 29 marks against the unreserved cut-off of 37.50.

She challenged the decision in the high court. The single judge directed the authorities to consider her appointment under the SC category on merit, provided she was otherwise eligible.

The single judge had observed that a candidate does not lose their reserved-category status merely because an earlier certificate does not conform to updated guidelines. It also said the responsibility lay with government officials to issue certificates acceptable to recruiting and selection authorities.

The division bench noted that the recruitment advertisement did not require SC/ST candidates to submit caste certificates mentioning their fathers’ names.

It also considered Sharan’s 2006 certificate issued by the sub-divisional officer, whose rank was higher than that of a circle officer. A subsequent certificate issued by the circle officer on August 17, 2019, mentioning her father’s name, was also placed before the court.

Citing the full bench judgment in Braj Kishore Prasad vs State of Bihar in 1998, the bench said courts could grant relief in deserving cases involving extreme hardship or injustice, provided the candidate had acted diligently.

The bench also referred to Supreme Court judgments on reservation, saying its constitutional purpose under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) was to address inequality in public employment and ensure equal opportunity for disadvantaged communities.

Finding no flaw in the single judge’s order, the division bench dismissed the BPSC appeal, giving relief to the doctor.