AMAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are directed against the procedures of selection of direct recruits of Additional District and Sessions Judge, as envisaged under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India. Since the two petitions challenge the process of selection for oral interview,' which is to commence from 3rd November, 1990, they are disposed of at the stage of admission itself after hearing both the parties.

(2.) In C. W. J. C. No. 6582 of 1990 petitioner Nog. 1 to 4 claim to be the applicants for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge pursuant to an advertisement dated 8-2-1985 (Annexure-1), and petitioner Nos: 5 & 6 arc non-applicants for the aforesaid post. Petitioner No, 2 also claims to be a member of the backward class under Annexure-II. In C. W. J. C. No. 6700/90 the petitioner, who is an advocate of this Court and not an applicant for this post, assails the advertisement dated 9-2-1985 (Annexure-1) and the advertisement dated 20-9-1989 (Annexure-2) by way of public interest litigation on the ground that there has been no reservation made in favour of backward classes, economically weaker classes and for women candidates, inasmuch as the Government has taken a decision on 10th November, 1978, in exercise of power conferred under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India to reserve 8% for other backward classes, 12% for extremely backward classes, 3% for women canaidates and 3% for economically weaker section of the society for appointment in state Services.

(3.) In C. W. J. C. No. 6582/90 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pressed the following six points only.