IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.502 of 2009 SHASIBHUSAN KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 30/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be a retrenched census employee who had worked as such in the Patna district. He is aggrieved by denial of consideration for appointment on a Class-4 post in the Gaya Collectorate in the category reserved for retrenched census employees by limiting it only to those who are retrenched census employees from Gaya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has his residence in Gaya town. The list of retrenched census employees all over the State of Bihar has been sent to each district from Patna and therefore there is no difficulty in cross verification of the status of the petitioner as a retrenched census employee by the Gaya Collectorate. In all fairness, it is stated that the appointment under the advertisement of 2004 have commenced after preparation of a panel. The grievance, however, is that panels are prepared annually and the petitioner is still eligible to be 2 considered on the next occasion if such unreasonable condition is not imposed. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court that the panel for appointment on Class-4 post at Gaya was being prepared in pursuance of certain order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1027/07 and analogous cases disposed on 25.7.2007. Learned counsel is, however, unable to point out any material from that order that the Court had excluded retrenched census employees of any other district from consideration in the district of Gaya. The counter affidavit contains no statement of the basis or the reasons for the justification to limit the advertisement in the category of retrenched census employees to those who were retrenched in the district of Gaya only to exclude those who may have been a retrenched census employee from Patna or any other district. Such exclusion and restriction clause, without any justification for the same being explained by the respondents per se becomes arbitrary and violative of Articles- 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which provide as follows: “14. Equality before law.--- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.--- (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under 3 the State. 1. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or officer under the State. In (2005) 5 SCC 172 (RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS) it has been held at paragraph-17 as follows:- “17. Although a feeble attempt was made by the counsel on behalf of the State respondents that different districts have different dialects and, therefore, it would be necessary to restrict the selection to candidates conversant and fluent in those regional dialects, we are not satisfied that adequate material was presented to the High Court on the basis of which this distinction could have been justified. In the first place, there was no material to indicate that dialects vary from district to district. Consequently, there was no material to indicate that a candidate from one district was not likely to be familiar with the dialect of another district for which he applied for training. There was also no material placed on record to indicate that training was to be in local dialect for the local school only. Finally, if the emphasis is really on the regional dialect, nothing prevented the State Government from making the knowledge of a specified regional dialect as preferential criterion for recruitment. For these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this issue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution.” Based on the submission of the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in holding that cross-verification of the actual status as a retrenched census employee from another district shall pose no difficulty in view of the 4 submission made that a combined list of retrenched census employees from all districts of Bihar has been forwarded from Patna to the individual districts. This Court, therefore, directs that if the petitioner applies in Gaya, in response to any other advertisement in the aforesaid quota, his case is required to be considered in accordance with law. It may only be observed that if a panel has been prepared in response to advertisement of 2004, it loses its validity after one year from the date of its preparation, unless there be statutory provisions prolonging its life. Otherwise such prolongation itself violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India by making others who may have become eligible subsequently being debarred from the opportunity to be considered. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)