IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3663 of 2009 Gajendra Kumar Pathak Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 02.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable in the BMP 5 in the general category in response to Advertisement No. 2 of 2004. It is submitted that the last person appointed in his category stood at serial 22 of the combined 5th, 6th and 7th merit list published in July 2008. The petitioner stands at serial no. 23. Mr. Maitin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the two reserved category candidates, one belonging to scheduled caste category and the other belonging to backward caste category have wrongly been appointed against the general category vacancy merely on basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination equivalent to that of a general category candidate. The height requirement, which should also have been confined to general category candidate, has been made available to them as a reserved category candidate. The same individual cannot have a dual status as a general category candidate for some purposes and as a reserved category candidate for other purposes. He further submits that when a reserved category candidate qualifies in the general category he vacates a seat for another reserved category candidate. If the benefit of reservation has been availed by the reserved category candidate no further vacancy shall remain in the reserved category for another candidate. Without prejudice to the same, Mr. Maitin on the aforesaid basis next submits that the two reserved category candidates can be appointed in their own category for which vacancy still exists as pleaded in para 14 of the writ petition, stated to be a matter requiring no comment in para 12 of the counter affidavit. Counsel for the State contended that a reserved category candidate can be treated as a general category candidate based on his marks retaining the benefit of height as a reserved category candidate. No statutory rules and/or instructions to that effect have been brought on record in the counter affidavit of the respondents. No final orders by the Court are possible at this stage without impleading the two reserved category candidates as party respondents. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, when they refused to place relevant rules and notifications before the Court and prefer to controvert the Court with their own conclusion, is again hardly of any assistance in adjudication. Had the respondents been a little more cautious of the nature of their duties in assisting the Court in dispensation of justice by filing a proper counter affidavit annexing relevant rules and notifications and left the conclusions for the Court, the matter may have attained finality today one way or the other. Because of a casual counter affidavit the controversy continues. Let the petitioner file a representation before the Respondent no. 4 in light of the aforesaid discussion within a period of four weeks from today. The representation is required to be decided by the Respondent no. 4 by a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind to the facts of the case, the contentions of the petitioner and by a process of reasoning displaying the thinking process to arrive at a reasoned conclusion within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such representation. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)