IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11746 of 2007 1. MD.RIZWAN ANSARI SON OF MD. AHMAD ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARGA BAZAR, P.O. CHAMPANAGAR, P.S. NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 2. MD. BASAD RAZA SON OF MD. SAMSAD RAZA, RESIDENT O MOHALLA BHIKHANPUR (TANK LANE), P.O. BHAGALPUR, P.S. ISAKCHAK, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE A.I.G. OF POLICE (PERSONNEL), BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, EASTERN RANGE, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE THEN S.P. BANKA-CUM-CHAIRMAN, CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR. 6. THE THEN S.P. NAUGACHIA-CUM-MEMBER, CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR. 7. THE THEN S.P. BHGALPUR-CUM-MEMBER, CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha For the State :- Mr. Mahesh Prasad, S.C. VIII Mr. R. K. Sinha, A.C. to S.C. VIII ------- 2 28/06/2010 There are two petitioners in the present writ application who still have hope to be appointed as constables on the basis of judicial intervention to an advertisement - 2 - issued by the State of Bihar way back in the year 1998. Recruitment drive was made by the State of Bihar by issuing Advertisement No. 1 of 1998. Recruitments were made across the State in many a districts and from number of writ applications which came to be filed by various candidates obviously it was not without controversy or allegation flowing fast and thick in the manner in which the recruitments came to be made. These two petitioners were not appointed to the post but they claim their eligibility in every respect for their recruitment on the post of constables. According to the averments of the two petitioners in the writ application the petitioners had a minimum height of 175.5 cms. which was good enough for them to be appointed on the post of constable because they claim themselves to be belonging to the category of extremely backward class. There is some indication to show that persons belonging to such category having similar height were appointed but these petitioners were not considered for appointment which is obviously discriminatory and arbitrary. An earlier attempt by the petitioners before this Court only culminated in direction to approach the concerned authority for consideration of their - 3 - claim and to pass a speaking order. On an exercise carried out on the claim of the petitioner order dated 12.7.2007 has been passed which is annexure-8 to the writ application and is under challenge. The decision also deals with the claim of these two petitioners along with some other candidates. There are some documents to show that the allegations or the grievance raised by the petitioners with regard to them belonging to the Extremely Backward Class could be correct but the primary question is whether an inference or an observation made subsequently by some authority is good enough to create a right in favour of the petitioners, that too at such a belated stage. Stand of learned counsel representing the State on the basis of several affidavits is that the petitioners were applicants for the post of appointment under the general category. Categorical affidavit filed in this regard is that of respondent no. 7 along with supporting original documents which do indicate that the two petitioners were considered for appointment as a general candidates. Their claim that they ought to have been considered under the E.B.C. category by virtue of their caste is an after-thought. Mere belonging to - 4 - E.B.C. category is not enough. It is dependent upon the applicants as to which category they wanted to be considered in matters of appointment. If the master sheet indicates that both these petitioners were considered for selection under the general category then their claim now at this belated stage that they also must get the benefit of caste reservation by virtue of their caste cannot be considered as a subsequent event. Legality or otherwise of the decision at the time of selection have to be considered on the materials available at the relevant time. It is not open to any candidate to improve their case as an after thought by claiming benefit of reservation by approaching the respondents at a subsequent stage. If the original records indicate that they were considered under the general category and it is not their case that any candidate in the general category having lesser height have been appointed to the post, then it is too late in the day for this Court to now direct the respondents that their cases should be considered under E.B.C. and that too after 12 years of advertisement when many recruitments have been made thereafter. The right or claim of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be adjudicated now for appointment to the - 5 - post for which process was initiated 12 years ago. No case for direction is made out. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)