Letters Patent Appeal No.601 OF 2006 (Against judgment and order dated 2.1.1006, passed in CWJC No. 14793 of 2004). **** 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ---------(Respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition)- Appellants Versus 1. UMESH KUMAR RANJAN Son of Sri Baleshwar Raman, resident of Village - P.O. Som Gopalpur, PS Gaurichak, District Patna—Petitioner/Respondent 2. Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna –Respondent 2nd set/ Respondent no.5 in the Writ application **** For the Appellants : Ms. Nilu Agrawal Govt. Advocate no.10 For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma Senior Advocate (Assisted by Rajneesh & Sanjeev Jaiswal For Respondent no.2 : Mr. Sanjay Pandey ************ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA S K Katriar & Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.J. This appeal has been preferred in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 2.1.2006, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.14793 of 2004, whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the respondent authorities have been directed to consider the petitioner’s case on merits. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present appeal. On the requisition of the appellant, respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as `the Commission’), had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/Assistant Director Class II, by direct recruitment. Respondent no.1 was a 2 candidate for appointment as a scheduled caste candidate. We need not state the details of facts which have already been discussed in the judgment dated 5.8.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.427 of 2007 (State of Bihar vr. Krishna Kanhaiya & Another), to which one of us (S K Katriar, J.) was a party, which arose out of a similar matter with respect to the same selection process. The judgment of the learned single Judge in those proceedings was modified by the Division Bench. Except the individual cases in the two proceedings, the facts are substantially in common. We have, therefore, the additional duty to ensure that no finding or direction in the present appeal is inconsistent with those recorded in the said judgment. 3. In the instant case, respondent no.1 had, in his initial application to the Commission, stated that he was a resident of Jamshedpur, then situate in the undivided State of Bihar. At a later stage, he informed the concerned authorities that he had given up his residence at Jamshedpur, and had finally returned to his permanent residence in Patna. The Commission did recommend his name against the reserved category of scheduled caste candidate, but the position was not acceptable to the State Government as a result of which appointment letter was not issued to him leading to the said CWJC No.14793 of 2004. The writ petition has been allowed on the ground that the father of respondent no.1 was in Central Government service and was posted at Jamshedpur for ten years. He had submitted his application to the Commission during the period the family was at Jamshedpur.. It is relevant to state that the advertisement had been published, and the applications had been submitted, prior to bifurcation of the undivided State of Bihar. After lapse of ten years, the family has finally returned to Patna, their permanent place of abode. Hence the change of address. The learned writ court, therefore, directed the State Government to accept the petitioner’s case of change of address in a situation where no fraud or misrepresentation was attributable to him. Aggrieved by the order, the State of Bihar has preferred the present appeal. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We entirely agree with the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition. We are 3 convinced that the change of address was for a bonafide reason and the State Government should not have rejected the case of respondent no.1 on that ground. His case has been strengthened by the aforesaid judgment in LPA No.427 of 2007, whereby the Division Bench has held that the advertisement had been published prior to bifurcation of the State of Bihar and all the vacancies of the reserved categories had taken place prior to bifurcation of the State, including two vacancies of the reserved category of schedule caste. This Court held that the benefit of reservation cannot be denied to the residents of the present State of Jharkhand if the vacancies had occurred, and the advertisement had been issued, prior to the bifurcation of the State. This has to be read with our view expressed therein that the present State of Bihar is justified in reducing the number of vacancies to be filled up because of bifurcation of the State. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We entirely agree with the learned single Judge that the case of respondent no.1 can not be ignored on the ground of change of address. Consistent with the directions contained in the judgment dated 5.8.2009, of the Division Bench in LPA No.427 of 2007, it is hereby directed that the Commission shall prepare a revised list of 12 persons, and the petitioner’s case shall be considered as per the roster system. If circumstances permitting, it will be open to the Commission to take into account the vacancy caused by non-joining. It is made clear that the appointment of 8 persons shall in any circumstance remain unmutilated. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of two months of the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the Commission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma ) Patna High Court, Patna The 15th of September 2009 NAFR/ mrl. 4