IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10487 of 2003 SUNIL KUMAR GOND & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh. Mr. Prashant Kumar. Advocate for the Respondents: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal G.A. 10 Zaki Haider, A.C. to G.A.10. ----------- 7/ 09/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners, who were appointed as constables in the Bihar Police, were terminated by separate, but common orders dated 20.8.2003. The controversy of their termination arises in the background of ‘Gour/Gonr’ being classified as backward castes and ‘Gond’ being classified as scheduled tribe. The allegation against them is that they belong to ‘Gour’ and, therefore, were ineligible for appointment, not being a ‘Gond’. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently by a government notification dated 28.2.2007 the State Government has clarified that there was no caste such as ‘Gonr/Gour’ and the only caste was a ‘Gond”. In pursuance thereto the fresh caste certificates of the petitioners have been issued on 22.5.2007 classifying them as ‘Gond’. The submission, therefore, is that in view of the aforesaid developments during the pendency of the writ application the respondents are obliged to re-consider the 2 issue of termination done on that ground alone. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, affirmed on 22.1.2010 by one Shri Saryug Prasad, Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. It acknowledges the notification dated 28.2.2007 and also that consequential orders have also been issued by the State Government on 2.7.2007 for implementation thereto administratively and appropriately. Unfortunately, it stops short at that. The duty of the State is to assist the Court in dispensation of justice and not to behave like an adversial litigant. It is unfortunate that the counter affidavit filed is non-committal in nature when, in fact, it was now up to the respondents to shorten litigation and to dispel unnecessary burden of this Court. The impugned order dated 20.8.2003 naturally, prima facie, appears to require consideration by the respondents. A little caution on part of the respondents in affirming the affidavit would have facilitated the disposal of the writ application today itself. The litigation continues due to the fault of the respondents when this matter has now to be remanded to the authorities to re-consider the impugned order dated 20.3.2003 in view of the government notification dated 28.2.2007 and 20.7.2007. Let such re-consideration be now done within a 3 maximum period of six weeks which this Court considers as sufficient time in the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, with a request that such matters where issues in the litigation have reached a culmination, the State assists this Court properly rather than being non- committal on issues where it may not have a defence either and thereby not only increasing the burden of this Court, but wasting the tax payers money in unnecessary litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners next presses for back wages for the period that the petitioners have been wrongly kept out of service relying upon a similar decision of a coordinate Bench in 2009(3) P.L.J.R. 1027 ( Om Prakash Gond Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.) at paragraph-9. Any claim for back wages on part of the petitioners has unnecessarily to be decided in accordance with law after a proper enquiry with regard to the principles for grant of back wages which includes the status of the petitioners in the interregnum and whether they had alternative sources of income etc. or not. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)