IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6456 of 2010 1. ANIL KUMAR ROY, S/O SRI TEJ NARAYAN ROY, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-BELSANDI VAYA KALYANPUR CHOUK, P.S.-CHAK MEHSI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 2. SAROJ KUMAR ROY, S/O LATE JAGDISHWAR ROY, R/O VILLAGE KHARAJ HAKIMABAD, P.S.-SAMASTIPUR (TOWN), DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRAIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 7. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 8. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 9. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 10.THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 11.THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 12.THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 13. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 14. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 15. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 05.01.2011 It appears that the respondents had earlier issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Subject Matter Specialist under the Agriculture Department in all the districts against 2 available sanctioned posts. Clause-7 of the said advertisement contained the condition that the applicants must be residents of the districts. Since this condition was apparently in the teeth of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India a writ application was filed in this Court by some of the candidates namely, CWJC No. 9520 of 2009. The said writ application was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure-4). This Court prima facie found that the said Clause was in the teeth of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution. However, instead of quashing the said Clause, direction was issued to the parties to represent the Principal Secretary of the Personnel Department highlighting that the Clause-7 was in the teeth of the policy decision of the Government contained in resolution dated 18.7.2007 as well as in the teeth of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petitioners approached the Principal Secretary through Annexure-5. The said representation of the petitioners was disposed of by the Principal Secretary by order contained in letter dated 16.2.2010 3 addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar. In that order it was mentioned that two merit lists shall be prepared one of the candidates of the districts and the other of the candidates of other districts. The vacancies shall be filled up first from the list of the candidates of the districts and if some vacancies remain unfilled then the same shall be filled up from the candidates of the other districts. Pursuant to that decision another advertisement has been issued by the respondents, vide Annexure-9. In the advertisement it has been made clear that the Subject Matter Specialist shall be of the district and if all the vacancies are not filled up from the candidates of the district then only the remaining vacancies shall be filled up from the candidates of the other districts. Apparently, this condition in the advertisement, although couched in different wordings, provides for 100% reservation for the candidates of the district. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it is stated that the petitioner was applicant for Vaishali district where he could not be selected. 4 The failure of the petitioners to get selected in Vaishali district does not debar the petitioners from applying in other districts for consideration of their cases. Clearly in terms of Article 16(2) no discrimination can be made in the matter of public employment on the basis of place of birth or residence. Therefore, the said condition in the advertisement is apparently in the teeth of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The same is therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidates of other districts also in the selection at par with the residents of the respective district on merits giving them equal treatment. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)