SHARMILA KUMARI Vs. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition was heard along with C.W.J.C. Nos. 4180 and 4504 of 1994. The question raised for consideration in this application being different, this petition is being disposed of by separate judgment. The judgment should be read as supplemental to the judgment in the other two writ petitions being disposed of today.

(2.) The Petitioner appeared at the 38th Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment to the Bihar Administrative Service and other services and posts on May 24, 1992 in the Economically Backward Females category. She was declared successful vide result published on July 18/24, 1992. The result of the examination was challenged in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7203 of 1992 on different grounds. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on July 29, 1993 (judgment since reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 178). The main examination was held thereafter in September, 1993. The Petitioner claims to have faired well in the examination. However, she was not declared successful in the result published on April 27, 1994. It is said that the reservation for candidates of the Economically Backward categories had been done away with in the light of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Amendment) Ordinance/Act, 1993 (in short, 'the Reservation Act/Ordinance') which had been promulgated/enacted in the meantime. The present writ petition was filed on May 9, 1994 for direction, inter alia, to consider the case of the Petitioner as a reserve candidate in the Economically Backward Women category. According to the Petitioner, the reservation for the Economically Backward categories being available at the commencement of the selection process, duly notified in the advertisement dated January 20, 1992, benefit of reservation cannot be denied to the candidates who had applied in those categories in the midst of the selection process.

(3.) The facts stated hereinabove are not in dispute. According to the Respondents, the aforesaid amendment in the Reservation Act made in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney V/s. Union of India, 1993 AIR(SC) 477 according to which reservation on the basis of economic criterion alone is not permissible. It is contended that the jmpugned amendment having been given retrospective effect the existence of reservation as on the date of advertisement and commencement of the selection process is of no avail to the concerned candidates.