IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8310 of 2010 1. RAJU KUMAR S/O SHRI HARI SHANKAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- RAMDHAN DUBEY TOLA, BAGAHA, P.O. AND P.S.- BAGAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH-----------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTT. - WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 8. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT. - WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 9. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER DISTT. - WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 10. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BAGAHA-1, DISTT. - WEST CHAMPARAN 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BAGAHA-1, BAGAHA, DISTT. - WEST CHAMPARAN-------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwajeet Mishra, Advocate For the State: Mr. AC to AAG-15 For the BPSC: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate ----------- 2 28.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Few facts are not in dispute, one of them being that the petitioner came to be appointed in terms of annexure-2 on 30.8.2004 i.e. after the intervention of the High Court vide its order dated 14.7.2008 contained in annexure-1. Petitioner could not be appointed despite his selection because of certain dispute with regard to his caste whether he should be treated as Scheduled Tribe or not. After the issue came to be settled by learned Single Judge by virtue of annexure-1, petitioner was offered appointment. Learned Single Judge has categorically held that for the purpose of seniority the petitioner would be deemed to - 2 - have been appointed on the date that the person immediately below him in the merit list of recommendation came to be so appointed as such. Prayer for payment of salary etc. was refused. In otherwords the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been appointed on the basis of the recommendation so made. His appointment letter is dated 30.8.2009 and the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner will apply to him from the date of his actual appointment and not on the basis of seniority given to him based on the order of learned Single Judge earlier. His claim is that if the rule has undergone change he cannot be held responsible, does not cut much ice because the rules have to be applied on the basis of employment offered to petitioner which cannot be deemed to have been made from an earlier date for other benefits. The Court has nothing to say so far as the seniority of the petitioner is concerned. But the rules and service conditions will apply to him from the date as they are in existence or from 30th August, 2009. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)