IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3519 of 2001 RAJU KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8. 14.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Primary Teacher. He applied under the reserved category as a Scheduled Tribe candidate with a case certificate of being “Gond’ issued under the signature of the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, an officer competent to do so. The Commission selected him as one of the candidates for recommendation accepting his caste certificate. The controversy then was created by the respondent State that notwithstanding the recommendation of the Commission and its satisfaction of the caste status of the petitioner, before appointment the petitioner was required to bring a caste status certificate from the concerned District Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the State with reference to the advertisement which did not contain any such stipulation found it difficult to support the pleading in the counter affidavit to that extent. If the respondents were satisfied of the caste status of the petitioner as “Gond” at the time they allowed him to sit for the examination, the question of re-scrutinising or re-furnishing of caste status looses its significance unless there be any subsequent development raising doubts on the earlier certificate. Presently such is not the case. Learned Counsel for the State fairly acknowledges from a government notification dated 20.7.2007 appended at Annexure 17 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner that an earlier controversy with regard to caste status of Gour, Gonr and Gond stands resolved now when the State Government has acknowledge the Scheduled Tribe status to “Gond” only and that no scheduled caste by the two other aforesaid names existed. It is also not in controversy in the present case that the caste certificate issued in respect of the scheduled tribe status of the petitioner as “Gond” by the Sub Divisional Officer remains valid and has not been questioned or annulled by the respondents. Though the counter affidavit sought suggest an issue of controversy in this regard learned Counsel for the State fairly acknowledges that the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by the Sub Divisional Officer has not been called into question. In that view of the matter the writ application is allowed. The respondent State is directed to act upon the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commissioner and Consider the appointment of the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before them. It is also clarified that for the purpose of seniority the petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed on the date that the person immediately below him in the merit list of recommendation came to be so appointed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next prays for salary. This Court is not inclined to grant him that relief since he has not worked for the period in question. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)