IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1989 of 2004 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Mohan Singh, resident of village and P.O. Ratwar, P.S. Bhabua, District – Kaimur (Bhabhua). _________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chairman, BPSC, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Secretary, BPSC, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary, BPSC, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Reservation Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. ----------- Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Madhusudan Kumar. For the BPSC : M/s. Kumar Brajendra Nath and Subodh Chandra Jha. For the State : Mr. S S Mishra, AC to GA 5. ------- 06. 13.07.2010 In the long drawn battle started by the petitioner by way of this writ application is to find employment under the respondent State of Bihar on the basis of 44th Combined Competitive Examination for which advertisement was made by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) on 9.7.2000. When the advertisement was released the State of Bihar had not been bifurcated and number of seats indicated in the said advertisement reflected the position for the undivided Bihar. On 15th November, 2000 the State of Jharkhand was carved out from the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar lost control over the geographical territory which fell within the area identified as Jharkhand. After the advertisement a preliminary test for the candidates interested to sit in the said examination was held and result thereof was declared on 24.2.2002. Result of the main examination thereafter came on 20th January, 2004. When the final results came, petitioner did not find a single candidate belonging to scheduled tribe 2 having been declared successful. He made some queries from BPSC but got no clear answer. Petitioner claims himself to be a successful scheduled tribe candidate in the preliminary test. In absence of any satisfactory explanation for missing scheduled tribe candidate in the list of successful candidates , the petitioner decided to file the present writ application. Two questions primarily have been urged which is based on guess work rather than sound pleadings and one is that the State of Bihar is bound to apply reservation policy in existence at the time of advertisement. On the basis of such reservation policy the scheduled tribe candidates are entitled to 10 per cent reservation. Subsequent reservation policy of 2002 which reduced their share to 1 per cent ought not to be applied in the case of the present petitioner. The other aspect is that there is obviously something amiss because final result does not show a single scheduled tribe candidate having been recommended for appointment and he insinuates that there is something wrong in the recommendation keeping in view the reputation of BPSC. No doubt when the advertisement was issued it was for the undivided Bihar. The appointment however will have to be made on the basis of law or rule as it exists, when the recommendations are made by BPSC and when actual appointment is made by the State. It will be logical to accept that the State of Bihar will continue to make appointments on the posts which are no longer available to be filled up and on the basis of a policy when a large section of claimants i.e. 3 scheduled tribes have already got a separate State. The vacancy existing in the State of Bihar will have to be considered with demographic representation as in existence which led to issuance of the new reservation policy of 2002. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the earlier reservation policy of 1992 relating back to the date of advertisement must continue, would be doing violation to the law which existed on the date of appointment. The historical facts based on which the bifurcation took place and the change of demographic population and its representation cannot be overlooked because the whole concept of reservation is based on the principle of representation of castes or community which inhabits the geographical area of the State. The first submission of the counsel of the petitioner in this regard has to be rejected and the Court certifies that there is a reservation policy brought into effect by the State in the year 2002 which shall govern the issue of appointment. On the question of applicability of the old reservation policy counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to annexure 10 of the writ application which is a letter issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 11th October, 2003. He submits that in accordance with the contents of annexure-10 the State was bound to make appointments on the basis of the old reservation policy where a requisition was made to the BPSC prior to the division of the State and recommendation of the BPSC has been received thereafter. 4 So far as the applicability of annexure-10 is concerned, the Court fails to understand as to how it comes to the rescue of the petitioner because it is not the case of the petitioner that a recommendation based on the advertisement prior to the bifurcation was made by the BPSC before coming of the notification dated 11th October, 2003 (Annexure-10). Admittedly, the final result was announced only on 20th January, 2004 and recommendation would follow thereafter. On the question of the petitioner expressing surprise that not a single scheduled tribe candidate had been shown in the final result, the Court has following to observe : that there is no clear pleading and evidence that petitioner was one of the candidate who had passed n the final or the main examination and was otherwise qualified for declaration of his result. The provision for reservation by itself does not guarantee passing of examinations. The role of reservation comes at the time of appointment and not at the time of holding examination for such appointment. Counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to investigate whether the petitioner had qualified or not. This Court can only observe that it has a duty and obligation to adjudicate issues brought before it and not get into investigating or enquiry made. There is adequate provision and legislation available in this land for a citizen to seek information on many an issue including what the petitioner wants this Court to find out despite the writ application having been pending before this court for almost six years now. In absence of 5 clear pleading or evidence, the Court is not inclined to direct the BPSC to produce copies and find out whether the petitioner had qualified in the mains or not. Learned counsel representing the State has shed light on the doubt expressed by the petitioner with regard to missing of scheduled tribe candidates from the list of the result declared by the BPSC on the basis of main examination. He contends that the recommendation of the BPSC has been made on the basis of the roster clearance as per 2002 reservation policy. Since the claim of the petitioner with regard to applicability of the 1992 reservation policy has not been accepted by this Court, the roster clearance shown by the petitioner will surely not have any applicability. As per the new roster based on the 2002 reservation policy, a scheduled tribe candidate gets an opening on the 44th position. The recommendation has been made strictly on the basis of roster point clearance and absence of scheduled tribe candidate from the list is no surprise. All the insinuations made against the BPCC or the State is a misplaced submissions not based on sound factual position. The Court taking into consideration the submissions and arguments made at the bar supported by the evidence brought on record both by the petitioners and the State, is of a considered opinion that absence of the recommendation of scheduled tribe candidates in the final result declared by the BPSC is not an element of surprise but is based on the roster point clearance as per 2002 reservation policy. The petitioner has not made out a case so far applicability of 1992 6 reservation policy. The results for the examination have come to be announced only in January , 2004, even though the advertisement was issued under the undivided Bihar. The State has done no wrong in applying the reservation policy when appointment was going to be made, as much water had flown since the advertisement was issued by the BPSC and when the final recommendations were made for appointment including bifurcation of the State. The writ application is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)