IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11404 of 2006 MD.ISHRAFIL, SON OF SHAMSHUL WAHID, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MARAUWATPUR, POST- MARAUWATPUR, P.S.-BESRI, DISTRICT-VAISHALI, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT JANGALIA ROAD, TOWN & P.S.- GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 15, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PATH, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PATH, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ………………… RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Adv. For the State: S.C. 4 For the B.P.S.C.: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv. ----------- 03. 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Counsel, representing the B.P.S.C. In response to Advertisement No. 01/1990, through which the B.P.S.C. had advertised different Class – III posts in different Departments of the State of Bihar, petitioner being a candidate of Most Backward Category (04) had also applied. He was allowed Roll No. 16238 and was finally selected for appointment on the post of Labour Enforcement 2 Officer. Petitioner was also recommended by the B.P.S.C. and only the appointment letter was to be issued in favour of the petitioner. However, on account of verification of Caste Certificate of the petitioner, issuance of appointment letter was delayed. In the meantime, on 15.11.2000, notification regarding bifurcation of Bihar and Jharkhand came. In the event of partition of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, since the appointment letter had still not been issued, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms advised for fresh recommendation by the B.P.S.C. as there had been cadre division of Officers and employees in between the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. Accordingly, the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, vide letter dated 22.04.2004, communicated to the Deputy Secretary, B.P.S.C., for sending fresh recommendation in favour of the petitioner, against one post in reserved category of Most Backward (Code-04). The controversy started from this stage. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the B.P.S.C. communicated through different letters and their stand was that since there has been bifurcation of States on 15.11.2000, any 3 vacancies in reserved category in the erstwhile State of Bihar, can not be filled, giving benefit of reservation to a candidate, who is domicile of Jharkhand State. Finally, the petitioner filed a Writ Application and MJC Application, but that was also disposed of on some other issues. Petitioner, left with no option, has again filed this Writ Application for similar direction. The only question, which arises for consideration is whether the issue relating to giving benefit of reservation to a domicile of Jharkhand State in the erstwhile Bihar, has any application in the facts and circumstances of present case. Admittedly, the advertisement was published in the year 1990 relating to vacancies up to the year 1993. Results were published, recommendations were made and all process completed so far other candidates are concerned, much earlier to 15.11.2000. In case of petitioner only, due to some technical lacuna the appointment letter could not be issued and in the meantime, the notification of bifurcation of States came into effect. Petitioner was not a domicile of another State till the date he was recommended by the B.P.S.C. at the 4 first instance. That recommendation had been made prior to bifurcation of the State. The State Government kept this matter pending for issuance of appointment letter for five years and subsequently, after bifurcation of the State, made communication to the B.P.S.C. for sending another recommendation in favour of the petitioner, which was refused by the B.P.S.C. The B.P.S.C. sought for opinion, giving reference of Act 15 of 1996, which prescribes that benefit of reservation, can not be allowed to a domicile of another State. The matter relating to recommendation by the B.P.S.C. and for issuance of appointment letter was rejected. I find that neither the Act 15 of 1996 has any application in the case of the petitioner nor this plea can be taken by the Respondent State as well as B.P.S.C. that being domicile of Jharkhand State, the petitioner can not be appointed against a post reserved for Most Backward Category Candidate. This is not the case of Respondents that the appointment letter relating to Advertisement No. 1/90 was issued subsequent to the bifurcation of the State. Ten years earlier in the 1990, posts had been advertised, publishing Advertisement No. 1/90. 5 Vacancies arising up to 1993 were to be filled through this advertisement. Recommendation had been made by B.P.S.C. in favour of other selected candidates as well as petitioner prior to issuance of notification, dated 15.11.2000, relating to bifurcation of the State of Bihar. Subsequently, earlier recommendation in favour of petitioner was returned to B.P.S.C. by the Secretary, Labour Employment Department for issuance of fresh recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Since, delay at each stage was caused by the B.P.S.C. and the Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, as such on account of cadre division, fresh recommendation could not have been denied by the B.P.S.C. In this circumstance, the stand, taken by the B.P.S.C. as well as the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, can not be considered to be a lawful stand. B.P.S.C. is directed to send fresh recommendation in favour of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer against a vacancy in the Most Backward Reserved Category. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms as well as Labour Employment and Training 6 Department, Government of Bihar, Patna are directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. Requisite Orders in this regard must be issued by Respondents within 12 weeks from the date of production / communication of this Order. Petitioner shall be entitled for same seniority, with effect from the date last candidate from the panel has joined the post. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)