IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1342 of 2010 Sudhir Kumar, son of Sri Saudi Singh, resident of village & P.O.-Khanwan, P.S.-Narhat, District-Nawada. ........Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Union of India, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances (Department of Personnel), Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi through its Deputy Secretary (SR). 6. The State Advisory Committee through its Secretary, Sichai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. Sri Ram Babu Chaudhary, son of not known to the appellant, Boiler Inspector, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur (Bihar). ..........Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 05/ 24-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India as well as State of Bihar. The appellant wanted this court to interfere with the order passed in favour of private respondent whereby he was allocated State of Bihar in place of State of Jharkhand. The writ court has upheld the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent authorities that 2 the appellant has no locus in the matter because the private respondent occupies the post of Inspector of Boilers and the appellant only aspires for getting that post in case an advertisement is proposed and issued by the State of Bihar or the Bihar Public Service Commission. The writ court has found that pursuant to earlier advertisement the appellant had applied but he was not found eligible and his challenge in that matter failed as is apparent from order of the LPA Bench dated 11.10.2004 which has also been extracted by the writ court. The only issue seriously canvassed before us is that because of private respondent being allocated to State of Bihar, now both the post of Inspector of Boilers within the State of Bihar stand occupied by persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. This, according to learned counsel for the appellant, amounts to 100% reservation. We have no difficulty in rejecting the aforesaid submission because both the posts are being occupied by the incumbents without any benefit of 3 reservation. This cannot amount to 100% reservation. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. BKS/pn (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)