MADHUSUDAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in effect and substance, seeks quashing of the decision of the State Government to terminate his services. Having taken the said decision the Government by letter no. 8892 dated 14.9.2001 of the Home (Police) Department has sought concurrence from the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said letter and a mandamus not to disturb his appointment.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was appointed to the Bihar Police Service in 1993 in the Scheduled Caste category on the basis of the Combined Competitive Examination held in the year 1991 result of which was published in 1992. It later came to the notice of the Government that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste, he was Baniya by caste but by misrepre - sentation managed to secure appointment in the Scheduled Caste category. The case of the petitioner is that though he was Baniya by caste by birth, on 10.3.78 when he was 14 years old he was adopted by one Rameshwar Paswan, a Dusadh by caste, which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Bihar. The petitioner has tried to make out a case that the said adoption by Rameshwar Paswan was a valid adoption within the meaning of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He has also given details of his academic career to impress upon the Court that he has been a good student throughout, in the competitive examination in question also he had secured 588.5 marks which was more than the marks secured by the last candidate in the General category. It was accordingly submitted that even if the petitioner had not claimed the benefit of reservation he could have been appointed on merit.

(3.) ON behalf of the State it was submitted that even if it be accepted that the petitioner would have been otherwise appointed on merit, he might not have got the Bihar Police Service and, therefore, his appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be illegal (sic ''legal ?) and therefore the decision to terminate his appointment does not require any (sic ''interference ?).