IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5930 of 2011 Prakash Uraon @ Rajaram Uraon S/o late Kanhai Uraon R/o village- Balua Uraon Tola, PO- Mansahi, PS- Mansahi, Distt_ Katihar-----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner Purnea Pramandal Purnea 2. The District Magistrate, Katihar Standing Committee, Katihar 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar –cum- Chairman, Distt- Appointment Standing Committee, Katihar 4. The Addl. Collector Katihar-cum-Dy. Chairman Distt- Appointment Standing Committee, Katihar 5. the Establishment Deputy Collector, Katihar-cum- Member District Appointment Standing Committee, katihar 6. The District Nazarat Deputy Collector, Katihar-cum- Member Distt- Appointment Standing Committee, Katihar 7. The District Education Officer, Katihar-cum- Member Distt. Appointment Standing Committee, Katihar 8. The District welfare Officer, Katihar-cum-Member Distt- Appointment Standing Committee, Katihar 9. The District Office Superintendent, Collectorate, Katihar- cum- Member Distt- Appointment Standing Committee, Katihar----------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 29.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is one of the persons who belongs to Scheduled Tribes category and wants a direction upon the respondent authorities, namely, the District Administration, Katihar to consider his claim for appointment on substantive basis as a measure of regularization. According to the petitioner, the decision was taken as far back as on 27.2.2006 and in the said decision there are reflections that vacancies existed to the extent of 24 in the category of scheduled tribes. He claims that he has a right for appointment against the said vacancy. In a similar matter which was filed by Binod Kumar & 2 others Vs. The State of Bihar & others, CWJC No. 3230 of 2011 disposed of on 7.7.2011, the Court after hearing the parties did take note of the fact that the vacancies indicated in the year 2006 may not have been calculated to the extent of reservation prevailing in the State of Bihar after bifurcation in the year 2000. Since the reservation for the schedule tribes has gone down to 1% in the State of Bihar, therefore, the vacancies reflected in the year 2006 may not indicate the correct position. In that view of the matter, no categorical direction was issued but the Court did direct the authorities that if the petitioners of that case fulfill the requirements and if the vacancies are existed against their quota, then their cases will be considered. Even in the present writ application same direction is being given that the case of the petitioner will be considered to the extent vacancy existed if he otherwise fulfills the requirement. The decision should be taken and the final status is intimated to the petitioner within a reasonable time frame. This writ application is disposed of with the observation aforesaid. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)