MANOJ KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRTY three posts were advertised in the year 1998. The advertisement specifically mentioned that out of those thirty three posts, sixteen are reserved for general category and amongst others, four are reserved for members belonging to backward class category. Appointments pursuant to the said advertisement were given on 24.3.2003. Prior thereto, on 10.9.2002 recommendations were made by the Bihar Public Service Commission after selecting the candidates. While making the recommendations it was shown that Ritish Kumar has obtained 15th position in general category, while the petitioner has obtained 2nd position in backward class category. Petitioner was not given an appointment, whereas Ritish Kumar had been given an appointment treating him as a candidate belonging to backward class category. Petitioner, thus, filed the present writ petition. His simple case is that even if Ritish Kumar is treated to be belonging to backward class community, which, according to the petitioner, after treating him as a person belonging to general category cannot be treated as backward class category, but still then the position of the petitioner in backward class community would be three, whereas the advertised vacancy was four and accordingly, there is no scope of not giving an appointment to the petitioner.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit it has been stated that in view of bifurcation of the State, vacancies have reduced and accordingly, some vacancies could not be filled up. When vacancies stood reduced, accepting the contention of the State, the State should have made an effort to proportionately adjust those vacancies. This was not done. Whereas two persons were appointed out of four vacancies reserved for backward class category, thirteen people were appointed out of sixteen vacancies reserved for general category. Why there was a fifty per cent cut in the vacancies reserved for backward class category and about twenty per cent cut insofar as general category has not been attempted to be explained. Neither the State nor its Officers can act on whims. Every action on their part must be reasonable or should be such that the same has reasonable nexus to the object. The statements made in the counter affidavit would show that one third of the vacancies stood reduced. If that be so then one third of sixteen should be five posts and one third of four posts would be little over one post. In such a situation, giving appointment to thirteen people in the general category against sixteen vacancies and refusing three appointments against four vacancies reserved for backward classes shows utter failure on the part of the State and its Officers to act in a manner as was expected of them, for the purpose of reservation policy and making of reservation in favour of backward classes is aimed to uplift them socially.

(3.) LET it be recorded that this court has not gone into the question whether the State or its Officers could treat the respondent no. 3, who had been recommended in the general category, as a backward class candidate, while being appointed.