IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5381 of 2007 SUMAN GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 16.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the State Advisory Committee. The petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by the allocation of his services to the State of Jharkhand as an Assistant in the joint cadre of Assistants in the Home (Police) Department in the backward caste category. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had applied for initial appointment as a backward caste category candidate but came to be selected as a general category candidate. Thereafter, for all practical purposes, he remained a general category candidate and was never treated by the Respondents as a backward caste category candidate. At the time when options were invited for purposes of allocation of cadres, the petitioner vide Annexure-3 submitted his option as a general category candidate for the State of Bihar. He was accordingly allocated the State of Bihar in the tentative list. He has subsequently been allocated the State of Jharkhand as a backward caste category candidate. The submission is that he cannot simultaneously be a general category candidate for certain purpose and backward caste category candidate for certain other purpose. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. The stand of the State of Bihar is that the petitioner 2 had submitted his option as backward caste category candidate. There are no supporting documents in support of this pleading. The pleading of the petitioner supported by Annexure-3 noticed above has not been denied. The next contention of the State of Bihar appears to be that no matter what may have happened to the petitioner subsequently and that he may have acquired the status of a general category candidate, for the reason that his initial application was as a backward caste category candidate, he was nonetheless to be considered for allocation on that basis irrespective of his status as a general category candidate now. The State has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Jharkhand High Court in WP(S) No. 4658 of 2004. To this Court that judgment may have no application on the facts of the present case which appears to be admitted. Counsel for the State Advisory Committee urged that the cadre allocation has been done on basis of the status of the employees as made available by the State Government. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate the stand of the State of Bihar in treating the petitioner as a general category candidate for certain purpose and simultaneously a backward caste category candidate for other purpose. It cannot co-exist together. The petitioner has to belong to one category. In that view of the matter, orders dated 21.12.2005, 4.5.2006 and 13.12.2006 are set aside. The matter is remitted back 3 to the authorities of the State of Bihar to arrive at a determination if the petitioner on the cut off date held the status of a general category candidate or a backward caste category candidate in the service of the State of Bihar. All further action shall follow in accordance therewith when the State Government is required to submit its proposal to the State Advisory Committee/Central Government, as the case may be, within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Necessary consequential action, if required is expected to be taken by the State Advisory Committee/Central Government, as the case may be, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of proposal from the State Government. This application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)