STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GANPATI SINQH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, at the instance of the State Government, is preferred against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was allowed and the State and its concerned authorities were directed to appoint him on the vacancy that was shown in the advertisement to be reserved for a Scheduled Tribes candidate. Though the appeal is filed by the State, the order of the writ court is mainly opposed by someone who was not even a party in the writ proceedings. He is one Dinesh Kumar and he apprehends that the appointment of the writ petitioner -respondent no. 1. as per the direction of this Court would lead to his ouster from service

(2.) THE facts are simple and without any controversy. The Bihar Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 18.12.1998 for filling up 33 vacancies of Junior Engineers in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. The number of vacancies coming in the share of the different reserved categories was indicated in the advertisement as follows:

(3.) THE selection examination was held on 17.10.2001 and the result of the written test was published on 21.3.2002. The candidates qualifying in the written examination were called for interview and interviews were held during the months of May and June, 2002. The final result was published on 19.6.2002 in which the writ -petitioner occupied first position for the three vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The Commission made its recommendation to the State Government on 10.9.2002 and in that recommendation the name of the writ -petitioner respondent no. 1. admittedly figured at serial no. 1 for the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Tribes candidates.