IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.166 of 2007 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1091 of 2006 ====================================================== Birendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jay Nath Singh, Resident of village and Post Office Nawada Ben, Police Station Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur at Arrah. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Post and Teligraph Department, Dak Bhawan Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Department of Post and Telegraph, Dak Bhawan Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, G.P.O., Patna. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, Patna Division, Patna. 5. Sri Arun Prasad, Son of Kapildeo Prasad, resident of Village Dimariya, P.O. Mandulia, Via Satgaon, District Nalanda, at present posted as Shorting Assistant, R.M.S. Patna Junction, District – Patna. 6. Sri Arbind Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of village Maksudih, P.O. Fatuha, Police Station Fatuha, District – Patna, at present posted as Shorting Assistant R.M.S. Patna Junction, Patna. 7. Sri Avinash Kumar, Son of Sri Bhagwan Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Chitragupta Nagar, Patna, at present posted as Shorting Assistant at H.R.D. Pt. Division, Patna. .... .... Respondent. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, C.G.C. For Respondents 5, 6 & 7: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocater ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 12/ 14-09-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel representing Union of India and the Private Respondents 5, 6 & 7. Counter affidavits have also been filed on behalf of Patna High Court C. REV. No.166 of 2007 (13) dt.14-09-2011 2 / 4 2 Union of India and Private Respondents. This review application has been filed by the petitioner in the light of an observation made by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12199 of 2007. While rejecting the Special Leave Petition of the petitioner a liberty was given to him for filing review application before the Patna High Court as C.W.J.C. No. 1091 of 2006 filed by the petitioner had earlier been rejected. The petitioner had applied for the post of Shorting Assistant for which vacancies had been advertised. The applications were to be routed through the Employment Exchange. Petitioner’s case is that he had applied against the post reserved for other backward category and the Respondents 5, 6 and 7 had applied considering their higher percentage of marks for general category post. A panel was, accordingly, prepared in which names of Respondents 5, 6 and 7 were in the panel of general category and petitioner’s name included in the reserved panel of O.B.C. Ignoring the penal, admit cards were issued to Respondents 5, 6 and 7 in O.B.C. category, since they had higher marks than the petitioner. Petitioner was not even issued admit card for participating in the selection process. The selection process completed in the year 1997 itself. Petitioner’s case is that he represented against non- Patna High Court C. REV. No.166 of 2007 (13) dt.14-09-2011 3 / 4 3 issuance of admit card to him, before the authority concerned but that was not considered. For the first time, he raised objection before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1998. The original application was dismissed, against which he preferred writ application. In the writ application some observations were made and the matter was remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal again rejected petitioner’s claim. Petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1091 of 2006, which was dismissed with a finding that persons, who came to be selected, have obtained more marks in the eligibility criteria at the time of selection process, and they are also belonging to the category of OBC. If, department finds them suitable on merit, how can it be objected to legally, and that too, in writ jurisdiction. Challenging this order, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12199 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner, that was also dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner for filing writ application and that review application is before us for consideration. On consideration of entire materials, we are of the view that the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to candidature of Respondents 5, 6 and 7 in the reserved category is not sustainable for the reason that these respondents had also annexed their caste certificates along with their application, which Patna High Court C. REV. No.166 of 2007 (13) dt.14-09-2011 4 / 4 4 is indicative of this fact that they were desirous of consideration of their candidature in the reserved category. Simply because they were erroneously empanelled as general category candidates, their rights cannot be curtailed for being considered in reserved category. Admittedly, Respondents 5, 6 and 7 have higher marks than the petitioner. In that view, we do not find any reason for reviewing earlier order passed by the High court in C.W.J.C. No. 1091 of 2006. Private respondents also belong to OBC category, their caste certificates was very much there, if, wrongly they were empanelled in general category, their rights for being considered in reserved category candidate cannot be curtailed. For the reason stated above, we do not find any merit in this review application, it is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J) (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)