IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.387 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8477 of 1996 With I.A. No. 1745 of 2011 ==================================================== Jitendra Ram son of Sudin Ram, resident of village+ P.O.-Khutaha, P.S. – Sabour District-Bhagalpur - Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Zone, Munger 5. Superintendent of Police, Munger. 6. Officer-in-charge, Sabour Police Station, District-Bhagalpur- Respondents - Respondents. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Kapil Deo Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, AAG-7 & Mr. S.S.Mitra, A..C. to A.A.G. 7 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 04.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1745 of 2011 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 2 has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of one day occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of . Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 387 of 2011 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 9th November 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 8477 of 1996. The matter at dispute is whether the appellant is entitled to reservation in public service on the basis of his adoption by a Scheduled Caste family. In the year 1992 the appellant secured appointment as a Police Constable on a post reserved for Scheduled Caste. While under training it was learnt that the appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste. His service was, therefore, after following the principles of natural justice, terminated on 9th August 1984. The said order was confirmed in departmental appeal in 1993. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 8477 of 1996. 3 The learned Single Judge has noticed that the biological parents of the appellant gave him in adoption at the age of 14 in a Scheduled Caste family; on the basis of the said adoption the appellant obtained a caste certificate of being Scheduled Caste and secured employment as police Constable. The authority below was of the opinion that the appellant having not been born in a Scheduled Caste family he was not entitled to the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The said view has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Following several Supreme Court judgments referred to in the impugned judgment, the removal of the appellant from service has been upheld. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Kapil Deo Singh, has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the appellant was born in a Kanu family, a community recognized as Extremely Backward Class. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was given away in adoption to secure benefit of reservation in the public service as Scheduled Caste candidate. The appellant, therefore, is entitled to reservation as a Scheduled Caste candidate. 4 We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Singh. The matter at issue is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court as well has, in 2003 (2)PLJR 118 [State of Bihar versus Madhusudan and others], held that the benefit of reservation can be availed on the basis of the community in which one is born We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to reservation in public service on the basis of the caste of his adoptive parents. There is one more reason to dismiss this Appeal. As recorded hereinabove, the appellant was recruited in the year 1982; his service came to be terminated in the year 1984. Now after 25 years at nearly 50 years of age, the appellant cannot be directed to be inducted in the police service. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Bibhash ( R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)