IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2424 of 2003 RABINDRA NATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate & Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh,Advocate For Respondent Nos.6 & 7:-Mr.Devendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate & Mr. Abhinay Raj,Advocate. 3 12.9.2008 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.12.2002 (Annexure-2) of the State Government whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the Bihar Judicial Service has been terminated. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission, for appointment to the Bihar Judicial Service, petitioner offered his candidature claiming himself to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. It would 2 be evident from the application form (Annexure A/1) annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission considered his candidature and treating him to be a member of the Scheduled Caste recommended for his appointment in that category. On the basis of the aforesaid claim, by notification dated 31.10.2000, he was appointed provisionally for a period of six months to the Bihar Judicial Service and posted as Munsif. Later, on inquiry, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and he is Kayasth, therefore his appointment against the vacancy meant for the Scheduled Caste is illegal. Accordingly, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same, his appointment has been terminated by the impugned order. 3 In paragraph 6 of the writ application he has clearly stated that he belongs to a forward class i.e. Kayasth and on that basis had applied for appointment in the Bihar Judicial Service. Therefore, there is no dispute that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. Further from the record, it is evident that he offered his candidature as a member of Scheduled Caste, and the Bihar Public Service Commission had recommended his name treating him to be in that category. Further it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed against the vacancy meant for the Scheduled Caste. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that marks obtained by him justifies his recommendation in the general category 4 and, as such, termination of his service is bad. We do not find any substance in this submission. Petitioner has no where averred that he had secured higher marks than the persons selected under the general category. The petitioner has obtained appointment by misrepresentation. He disclosed himself to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. On that basis the Bihar Public Service Commission recommended for his appointment. The notification appointing him clearly shows that he was appointed against the vacancy meant for the Scheduled Caste. In that view of the matter, the order terminating his service cannot be said to be illegal. In case the petitioner believes that he has secured more marks than the candidates of the general category selected for appointment he shall have 5 liberty to bring an appropriate action for the said purpose. In the result, we do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the State Government. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Dr.Ravi Ranjan,J.) A.Kumar