IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2630 of 2007 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………………………………… RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Versus 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KANELWALA, POLICE STATION DALTONGANJ, DISTRICT-PALAMU(JHARKHAND). 2. SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. …………………………… RESPONDENT/PROFORMA RESPONDENT ----------- 6 14.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State of Bihar and its officials as also counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner. In this writ application seeking modification of the earlier order of this Court dated 23.11.2006, the grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of last two paragraphs which in fact is the operative portion of the order. The said last two paragraphs reads as follows:- “In those circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to ensure appointment of the petitioner in a vacant post of Lower Division Clerk as available after taking into consideration the vacancies available after bifurcation of the State of Bihar. Let steps in accordance with the above directions be taken as quickly as possible but not later than three months 2 from today and it is made clear that while giving the appointment, the State shall give such appointment strictly in accordance with the merits and in accordance with the reservation policy of the State.” When counsel for the respondents/ petitioners was pointedly asked as to which sentence or in which paragraph was sought to be modified, he would submit that he would only need a clarification by addition of the words “as existing on the date of advertisement or selection” in the last sentence of paragraph no.2 after the word “reservation policy of the State”. According to him, the paragraph no.2 would therefore read as:- “Let steps in accordance with the above directions be taken as quickly as possible but not later than three months from today and it is made clear that while giving the appointment the State shall given such appointment strictly in accordance with the merits and in accordance with the reservation policy of the State as existing on the date of advertisement or selection.” It is really ridiculous to find that an order of this Court dated 23.11.2006 which was sought to be complied by within a period of three months i.e. 23rd of February, 2007 has 3 not yet been complied on account of the aforementioned non-existent confusion sought to be created by the petitioners. This Court had decided the matter relating to an advertisement which was issued in the year 1999 and by that point of time the recruitment rules had provided to follow the reservation scheme as prevalent in the year 1996. Obviously, any selection made pursuant to that advertisement of the year 1999 will have to be necessarily related to the rule that was existing as on the date of advertisement. Merely because the reservation rules on account of division of erstwhile State of Bihar and creation of State of Jharkhand had undergone a change in the year 2003, could not have affected any selection already made prior to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar. It is not in dispute that the selection process had already culminated into declaration of the result/merit list on 10.11.2000 whereas the State of Bihar came into existence only on 15.11.2000. The applicability of the relevant rules which were prevalent at the time of initiation of selection process stands settled in a large 4 number of cases decided by the Apex Court itself, one of them being in the case of P.Mahendran & Ors. Vs. Mattesh Y. Annigeri & Ors. reported in 1990 SC 404. In that view of the matter, this application seeking modification is wholly uncalled for and seems to have been filed only to delay the implementation of the order of this Court. Since the petitioners have not complied the order of this Court which ought to have been complied within a period of three months from the date of order i.e. by 26th February, 2007, on account of pendency of this application seeking modification, it goes without saying that now as this application is being dismissed, the petitioner would do the needful for carrying out the direction of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations/ direction, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)