IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9702 of 2010 ================================================== Santo Kumar, S/O Sri Krishnanandan Pd. Village Thalposh, P.O. Bhatta, P.S. Pakarigawan, District Nawada. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Special Secretary, C.M. Secretariate,Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms (Dept. Of General Administrative) Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Dept. Of Law, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Bailey Road,Patna. 6. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resource And Development,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 7. The Director,Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =================================== 3 05.05.2011 The exercise for selection of Assistant Teachers was initiated by the erstwhile State of Bihar in terms of an advertisement issued in the year 1996 but by the time the selection and recommendations came to be made. State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15th November 2000. Selection and recommendation of the petitioner was made for appointment in the district of Lohardagga which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand. Obviously the State of Jharkahnd refused to accept the recommendation of the BPSC for any appointment under their jurisdiction. There were many a round of writ applications filed by the petitioner looking for his appointment either in the State of Jharkahnd or in the State of Bihar but nothing came from it. Exercise done at the level of the HRD, Government of Bihar, Patna to accommodate the petitioner ultimately turned futile in the circumstance where a detailed legal opinion of the Advocate General was given on the issue which reflects the position as would be evident from perusal of Annexure-A/1 brought on record with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.7. The then Advocate General has categorically recorded that in a LPA filed in similar circumstances, the State of Bihar was allowed to appear and the LPA bench after relying on different judgments of the Apex Court held that the recommendation made by a selection body of State “A” will not bind State “B” after reorganization. It accordingly held that 122 recommended candidates cannot be considered for appointment in the State of Bihar in the given set of facts. It is the opinion of the erstwhile Advocate General that the case of the present petitioner also falls in the same category. He also records that the recommendation to accommodate the petitioner by appointing him in the present State of Bihar was not possible because after the 2006 rule it has been decided that the cadre of Assistant Teachers would be a dying cadre and any appointment made in such cadre will surely create complications in future. Ultimately therefore the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court. He can only rue his fate because of certain unforeseen developments which was totally unexpected i.e. bifurcation of the State. This writ has no merit. It is dismissed. PN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)