DINESH KUMAR RAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to treat him the domicile/resident of Jharkhand and to direct them to appoint him to the post of Constable.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he applied for appointment to the post of Constable in the district of Dhanbad, in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/04. In the application, he had given his residential address 'Village -Lalmatia, District -Godda' but he had also given his permanent address 'Village Chulkar, Post Office and Police Station -Rajpur, District - Rohtas (Bihar)'. He was allowed to appear at the test and was selected for the post of Constable vide Notice No. 1469 dated 16th April, 2005 and was directed to appear with original certificates on 22nd April, 2005. Pursuant thereto, he appeared but not having been provided with the letter of appointment, having been treated to be a resident of the State of Bihar, he has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relied on certain statements, made by the petitioner, to suggest that his grand -father was finally settled in Village - Lalmatia, District -Godda before 1932 and had paid rent towards land etc. However, the question of domicile/ resident cannot be determined by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. Whether a member of Backward Class of the State of Bihar can be treated to be a Backward Class for the State of Jharkhand for the purposes of appointment in the in the services of the State of Jharkhand fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Kumari Kandhw and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P.(S) No. 578 of 2004 and analogous cases. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 1st May, 2006 held that a Backward Class of one State can not be deemed to be so in relation to other State and the caste certificate, issued by one State, is not valid for the other State.