IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.462 of 2001 ******* (Against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3575 of 2001) 1. BIHAR POLICE MENS ASSOCIATION,, BRACNH-BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-16, NAUSA PHULWARI SHARIF, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANTRI 2. HARENDRA KUMAR @ HARENDRA KR. SINGH S/O JANAK PRASAD SINGH, THE MANTRI, BIHAR POLICE MENS ASSOCIATION, BRANCH-BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-16, PHULWARISHARIF, PATNA …………………………………PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THOUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,OLD SECRETARIEATE, PATNA 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE) GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR,OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HUMAN RIGHTS), BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, MILITARY POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, MILITARY POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-16, NAUSA, PHULWARISHARIF, PATNA …………………………………RESPONDENTS ********** FOR THE APPELLANTS:- Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Priyarshi, Advocate FOR THE STATE :- Mr. Arvind Ujjwal , SCXI Mr. rajesh Kumar, JC to SCXI ********* P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA Barin Ghosh & S.K.Sharma, JJ. Heard. In the writ petition, the appellant contended that the decision to apply reservation policy of the - 2 - Government, as enshrined in the Bihar Reservation in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act 1991, in relation to vacant posts of constables to be supplied in BMP-16 was improper. It was contended that BMP- 16 is constituted of only combatant Ex-Service Men and amongst them there was no reservation. It was, therefore, contended or insinuated that the reserved posts, as would be available in BMP- 16, cannot be supplied. The original argument as was advanced, that is to say BMP-16 has been reserved exclusively for combatant Ex-Service Men, for the reason recorded in the order under appeal has not been repeated before us. It was only contended that in as much as there had been and has been no classification amongst Ex- Service Men, it may not be possible to supply the reserved vacancies. It was next contended that in any event BMP-16 was raised in 1982 and since then the vacant posts in BMP-16 had been supplied only by Ex-Service Men without any reservation. It was lastly contended that the State Government was approached for applying reservation policy for the vacancies in BMP-16, but the State Government did not accede to the request. - 3 - We have read the letter of the State Government, upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant and which had been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the Commandant of BMP-16. The said letter would clearly indicate that the proposal was given on behalf of BMP-16 not to apply reservation policy of the State in relation to the vacant posts available in BMP-16, but the State Government refused to do so. In this connection, it would be proper to take note of section 3 of the said Act, which suggests that the said Act shall not apply in relation to, amongst others, such other posts of State Government as may from time to time by an order be specified. The letter, referred to above, would show that an approach was made to the State Government not to apply the said Act to the vacant posts available in BMP-16, but the State Government refused to do so and accordingly, it did not specify vacant posts available in BMP-16 as such other posts to which the said Act shall not supply. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that since the date of coming into force of the said Act, i.e. since 7th January, 1992, vacant posts available in BMP-16 are to be supplied in accordance with the reservation policy enshrined in the said Act. It is possible that - 4 - from 1982 until the subject advertisement was published in November 2000, reservation policy was not applied to the posts filled-up in BMP-16, but that being contrary to the provisions of the Act, the same cannot be treated as a precedent. On the basis thereof no right can be founded. It is possible that all Ex- Service Men, who have responded to the said advertisement belong to general category and accordingly, it is also possible that the posts, as advertised, may not be filled-up. On the basis of such possibility, however, it cannot be said that application of the reservation policy, as contained in the said Act, is inappropriate. In the event vacancies for the reserve category persons cannot be supplied, effort should be made to fill up the same pursuant to the Act. The Act itself suggests what is required to be done. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal by which the writ petition was dismissed. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal. (Barin Gosh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court The 19th December, 2008 avin/N.A.F.R.