IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1061 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5032 of 2005 With Interlocutory Application No. 4887 of 2011. ====================================================== 1. Sanjay Kumar Moses, son of Henry Moses, resident of Village and Post – Champanagar, P.S. – University Thana, District – Bhagalpur and 2. Sudhansu Moses, son of Henry Moses, resident of Village and Post – Champanagar, P.S. – University Thana, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioners / Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna, 3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna 4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.N. Sahi AAG 14 and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG 14. For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 25-07-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 4887 of 2011. Delay of 19 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Patna High Court LPA No.1061 of 2011 (2) dt.25-07-2011 2 / 4 2 Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1061 of 2011. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 3rd May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 5032 of 2005. The appellants are two of the applicants who, in answer to the advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission, applied for selection and appointment to the administrative posts in the then State of Bihar (prior to its bifurcation into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand) in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners took the 43rd to 52nd Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission but have not succeeded. Process of recruitment was intervened by an unforeseen incident of bifurcation of the then State of Bihar into the States of Bihar and Jharkhand under the Bihar State Re-organization Act, 2000. On account of the bifurcation of the State, the vacancy position was substantially altered. The reservation for Scheduled Tribes also stood altered on account of most of the tribal areas being part of the State of Jharkhand. It is the grievance of the appellants that but for the reduction in the extent of reservation for the Scheduled Tribes under the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in the Post and Services (For Backward Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bihar Act 17 of 2002) [hereinafter referred to as the `2002 Act’] the appellants would have been selected for appointment to the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The appellants approached this Court in above CWJC Patna High Court LPA No.1061 of 2011 (2) dt.25-07-2011 3 / 4 3 No. 5032 of 2005 to assert that the respondents should make appointment to the declared vacancies and, for the reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates, rules as were prevalent prior to the 2002 Act should be followed. The claim has been rejected by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has held, “There are two reasons for it, efflux of time and another is the change in demographical scenario in the bifurcated State of Bihar as well as the date of publication of final result and appointment, which have already been made after bifurcation of the State of Bihar. The reliance placed by the petitioners’ Counsel on an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2563 of 2003 has no application in the present case, considering the difference in the facts of both the cases.” Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Vivek Prasad has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that it is the settled law that once the recruitment process is commenced, the same shall be completed in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of the commencement of the recruitment process. In the present case, the recruitment process was intervened by the aforesaid Re- organization Act, 2000 and the 2002 Act. The State of Bihar and the Bihar Public Service Commission wrongly regulated the recruitment process by the aforesaid provisions instead of continuing under the provisions prevalent at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of A.A. Calton v. The Director of Education & Anr. [AIR 1983 SC 1143] and of P. Mahendran & Ors. v. Matteesh Y. Annigeri & Ors. [AIR 1990 SC 405]. Patna High Court LPA No.1061 of 2011 (2) dt.25-07-2011 4 / 4 4 We do agree with the proposition of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments and reiterated time and again. We do also agree with the learned single Judge that the passage of time and the intervening incidence of bifurcation of the then State of Bihar have to be considered before following the aforesaid settled law. The aforesaid normal rule cannot be operated in the changed scenario. We agree with the view of the learned single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)