IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14476 of 2003 SANJAY KUMAR KISKOO & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 20/ 11/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The two petitioners were applicants for the post of District Fisheries Officer and equivalent posts under Advertisement No.27/99 published on 22.12.1999. They belong to the Scheduled Tribe and most backward caste category respectively. Clause-5 of the advertisement stipulated that the benefit of reservation shall be available only to the residents of the State of Bihar. On 5.12.2002 they were interviewed and on 22.1.2003 recommendation was made by the Bihar Public Service Commission when petitioner No.1 stood at Serial No.13 and petitioner No.2 at Serial No.11 in their respective categories. On account of intervening developments by reason of the re-organization of the State of Bihar effective from 15.11.2000 and the consequent allocation of posts in the ratio of 2/3rd to the State of Bihar and 1/3rd to the State of Jharkhand, the vacancies as advertised in 1999 required re-structuring. The recommendation was 2 therefore not acted upon when fresh recommendation has been made by the Bihar Public Service Commission on 27.10.2004. The names of the petitioners do not find place in this recommendation and they are aggrieved by the same. It is not in controversy as a matter of fact that even on 22.12.1999 the petitioners were physically residents of that geographical area which has now been identified as the State of Jharkhand after the reorganization of the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date of the advertisement they were residents of the unified State of Bihar. They have therefore to be considered on that basis and Clause-5 of the advertisement shall not prejudice their consideration in the year-2004. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar urged that subsequent developments which have taken place have to be looked into when the number of vacancies has also been reduced. The petitioners do not challenge the restructuring of these vacancies. Subsequent developments can be a justified ground not to interfere in the application when the petitioners now are admittedly not residents of the reorganized State of Bihar. He relies upon a Division Bench judgement reported in 2009(2) P.L.J.R. 265 ( Khichri Ram & Ors. Versus The State of 3 Bihar & Ors.) which considering the challenge to Bihar reservation of vacancies in posts of services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1992 as amended in Section-4 by 2003 Act upheld the retrospectivity of Clause-5 with effect from 11.6.1996. Subsequent developments that take place during the pendency of a writ petition can affect the outcome of the writ petition when it may become a compelling necessity for the Court to do justice to take into account the subsequent developments. This shall be more imperative when the subsequent developments are historic in nature, across the board and not confined to the individual petitioner alone. What the petitioners desire essentially is that they be declared residents of the unified State of Bihar as existing on 22.12.1999 by a fiction, but in pursuance of the same seek appointment on a post which has fallen to the share of the State of Bihar after the reorganization of the State when they are no more residents of the State of Bihar. Once the petitioners accept the correctness of the subsequent developments, the same has to be given full effect and there can be no truncated acceptance or recognition of these developments as urged by the petitioners. To this Court, the claim of the petitioners is a 4 contradiction in terms. If they accept the subsequent developments that automatically results in variation of the advertisement dated 22.12.1999 to that extent with effect from 15.11.2000, shutting out non-residents of the State from the benefits of reservation. Clause-5 of the advertisement has to be read reasonably in light of the subsequent developments. Clause-5 cannot be limited down in its application to 22.12.1999. This Court, therefore, holds that the claim of the petitioners to treat them as an applicant of the unified State of Bihar as on 22.12.1999, to grant them appointment on that basis on vacancies fallen to the share of the State of Bihar, recognizing the subsequent developments, and the consequent denial of the State of Bihar. The advertisement dated 22.12.1999 automatically stood varied on 15.11.2000 much before the recommendation even came to be made on 22.1. 2003, excluding from consideration those non-residents in the State of Bihar on basis of reservation category status. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)