ISHRAFIL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the State and the Counsel, representing the B.P.S.C.

(2.) In response to Advertisement No. 1/1990, through which the B.P.S.C. had advertised different Class-Ill posts in different Departments of the State of Bihar, Petitioner being a candidate of Most Back-ward Category (4) had also applied. He was allowed Roll No. 16238 and was finally selected for appointment on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer. Petitioner was also recommended by the B.P.S.C. and only the appointment letter was to be issued in favour of the Petitioner. How-ever, on account of verification of Caste Certificate of the Petitioner, issuance of appointment letter was delayed. In the meantime, on 15.11.2000, notification regarding bifurcation of Bihar and Jharkhand came. In the event of partition of the State of Bihar, and Jharkhand, since the appointment letter, had still not been issued, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms advised for fresh recommendation by the B.P.S.C. as there had been cadre division of Officers and employees in between the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. Accordingly, the. Labour Commissioner, Bihar, vide letter dated 22.4.2004, communicated to the Deputy Secretary, B.P.S.C. for sending fresh recommendation in favour of the Petitioner, against one post in reserved category of Most Backward (Code-4). The controversy started from this stage. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the B.P.S.C. communicated through different letters and their stand was that since there has been bifurcation of States on 15.11.2000, any vacancies in reserved category in the erstwhile State of Bihar, cannot be filled, giving benefit of reservation to a candidate, who is domicile of Jharkhand State. Finally, the Petitioner filed a Writ Application and MJC Application, but that was also disposed of on some other issues. Petitioner, left with no option, has again filed this Writ Application for similar direction. The only question, which arises for consideration is whether the issue relating to giving benefit of reservation to a domicile of Jharkhand State in the erstwhile Bihar, has any application in the facts and circumstances of present case.

(3.) Admittedly, the advertisement was published in the year 1990 relating to vacancies up to the year 1993. Results were published, recommendations were made and all process completed so far other candidates are concerned, much earlier to 15.11.2000. In case of Petitioner only, due to some technical lacuna the appointment letter could not be issued and in the mean-time, the notification of bifurcation of States came into effect. Petitioner was not a domicile of another State till the date he was recommended by the B.P.S.C. at the first instance. That recommendation had been made prior to bifurcation of the State. The State Government kept this matter pending for issuance of appointment letter for five years and subsequently, after bifurcation of the State, made communication to the B.P.S.C. for sending another recommendation in favour of the Petitioner, which was refused by the B.P.S.C. The B.P.S.C. sought for opinion, giving reference of Act 15 of 1996, which prescribes that benefit of reservation, can-not be allowed to a domicile of another State. The matter relating to recommendation by the B.P.S.C. and for issuance of appointment letter was rejected.