LAWS(PAT)-2004-1-3

MANOJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 23, 2004
MANOJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in 42nd Combined Competitive Examination for selection for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector. THE examination was conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, here-in-after to be referred as the Commission. THE result was published and, thereafter, recommendation was made by the Commission to the Government for appointment. THE appointment of some of the candidates was made vide notification dated 30.9.2000, Annexure-1, wherefrom it appears that 110 persons were appointed without any condition any by the same notification about 61 persons were appointed on ad hoc basis for six months with a condition that if nothing would be against their character their services shall be regularised. From the notification, Annexure-1, it further appears that the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes were not appointed in view of the letters dated 1.8.2000 and 19.8.2000 of the Commission. However, the said letters were withdrawn by the Commission vide letter dated 20.10.2000. THE petitioner was appointed thereafter in the month of August, 2001. Jharkhand State was created with effect from 15.11.2000. THE petitioner made a grievance for option but it was not paid heed. THE petitioner has thus come before this Court for issue of direction to allow an opportunity to the petitioner to file his option.

(2.) A counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State wherein stand has been taken that appointment was made after bifurcation of Jharkhand State and also that the Commission recommended the names of 44 candidates of reserved category though the requirement was only of 31 persons and as such there was delay in appointment of the candidates of reserved, category. According to the respondent-State and its authorities since the appointment was made after bifurcation of Jharkhand State and as such the petitioner is not entitled to exercise option. A counter-affidavit has, also been filed on behalf of the Commission wherein stand has been taken that the condition/ restriction over the appointment of the reserved category candidates was withdrawn much prior to the bifurcation/creation of Jharkhand State vide letter dated 20.10.2000. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has annexed the list of candidates who were appointed vide Annexure-1 including conditional appointment, 41 persons have been allowed Jharkhand State.