IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5973 of 1994 ADITYA NATH JHA, S/O AMAR NATH JHA, R/O VILLAGE-RANTI, P.S.-RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, Adv. and Mr. Madhuranand Jha. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Juli Kumari, AC to SC-III. ----------- 7 06.04.2010 Besides praying for a direction to the respondents to recommend his name for Bihar Administrative Service on the basis of 38th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, pursuant to advertisement dated 20.01.1992, petitioner has also prayed in this writ application to hold Section 4 of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Post and Service (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 as ultra vires. Since the vires of a letter was under challenged in this case normally the case was required to be referred to a Division Bench. However, it is agreed at the bar that the 2 question of vires of the said provision stands decided by the judgment of the Apex Court passed on 23.9.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 9763 of 1996. A copy of the said order of the Apex Court has been annexed by the Commission in its counter affidavit as Annexure-B. A reply to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the reply petitioner now raises new stand that in terms of the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 31.07.1992 the subject barrier for preparing panel for recommendation stood removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the circular been implemented while preparing the panel the petitioner would have been much higher in the panel than many persons selected and appointed. He also submits that since by the Ordinance the reservation policy was applied in the pending process for appointment pursuant to the said advertisement dated 20.1.1992 this decision of the Government should also have been implemented in the process. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that the advertisement was published in 3 January, 1992 whereas this decision of the Government was notified in July, 1992. Therefore, normally it was not applicable to the pending process of selection. The question now being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner through his reply could be considered in the case had it been raised in the writ application itself. This was not done. Although the said decision of the Government, contained in the said letter dated 31.07.1992, was available publicly, now, after almost 16 years, a new issue being raised in the case by way of reply to the counter affidavit cannot be considered since it will amount to unsettling the entire process held 16 years back. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that, even if, there was no claim for implementation of the said letter by any of the candidates it was a solemn duty of the State to get it implemented in the said selection process. This is a controversial issue whether changes affected in policy matters after the selection process has started will automatically 4 become applicable in the ongoing selection process or not. The issue having not been raised in the writ application, this Court does not feel it appropriate to consider the same now. The original issue raised by the petitioner in this writ application having been settled by the Apex Court, the writ application is devoid on merits and it is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)