Patna High Court - Orders
Dinbandhu Kumar Kanavjiya & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 31 July, 2014
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22979 of 2013
======================================================
1. Dinbandhu Kumar Kanavjiya, son of late Nathuni Baitha, resident of
village Rajua Bakhari, P.S.Mehsi, District-East Champaran, at
present rental Flat No. 61, Lohiya Nagar,Kankarbagh Colony, P.S.
Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
2. Sanjay Prasad Choudhary, son of Sri Munsi Prasad Chaudhary,
resident of Mohalla-Prasad Bigha Gali, P.S. Nawada, District-
Nawada.
3. Satyendra Kumar Satyapal, son of Sri Satya Narayan Paswan,
resident of village-Dihara, P.S.Harnaut, District-Nalanda.
4. Sunil Kumar Paswan, son of Sri Nandlal Paswan, resident of village-
Rahua, P.S. Warisnagar, District-Samastipur.
5. Arvind Kumar, son of Sri Ambika Ram, resident of village-
Lachhumanawa, p.S. Ramgarhwa, District-East Champaran.
6. Rakesh Aman, son of Sri Motilal Ram, resident of village-
Haribalma, P.S.Nautan, District-Siwan.
7. Anuj Kumar, son of Sri Bundela Paswan, resident of village-
Krishnapur, P.S. Hilsa, District-Nalanda.
8. Manoj Kumar Ram son of sri Kapildeo Ram, resident of village-
Ekma,P.S. Ekma, District-Saran.
9. Archana Prasad Alias Kumari Archana Prasad, daughter of sri
Jagdish Prasad, C/o Sri Dr. Pawan Kumar Lal, resident of Mohalla
Parbatti P.S. Tetarpur, District-Bhagalpur.
10. Basant Ram son of sri Rameshwar Ram, resident of village-
Salepur, P.S. Singhiya, District-Samastipur.
11. Ashok Kumar Nirala, son of late Sheonandan Chaudhary, resident of
Mohalla-Mafi Road, Ward, No. 2 Warisaliganj, P.S.Warisaliganj,
District-Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through the Chairman of
Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
8. The Additional Secretary-cum-examination Controller, Bihar
Public Service Commission, Patna.
9. The Joint Secretary-cum-examination Controller, Bihar Public
Service Commission, Patna.
10. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
11. The Deputy Secretary, State Schedule Caste Commission, Bihar,
Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014
2
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondant : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Prasad (G.P.-7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
CAV ORDER
10 31-07-2014Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Lalit Kishore, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Public Service Commission and Mr. Dhurjati Prasad the learned counsel for the respondent-State authorities.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing the decision of the respondent-Commission as contained in memo no. 173 date 30.09.2013 (Annexure-9) turning down the requisition by the respondent-State for recommendation of the names of the remaining successful candidates of schedule caste category to fill up the unfilled 13 vacancies of the schedule tribe category, pertaining to the advertisement no. 02 of 2007, after the exchange of vacancies in accordance with Section 4 Sub Section 6 (a) of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 3 Act, 1991, and further for direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the aforesaid 13 unfilled vacancies/posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Padadhikari. By filing interlocutory application (I.A. No. 3798 of 2014), the petitioners have sought for addition of relief, by way of amendment in the writ application, for quashing the order dated 26.03.2014 ( Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no. 4 and 5) issued by the respondent-State of Bihar by which the earlier letters of requisition dated 15.01.2013 and 27.07.2013 (Annexure- 7 and 8 to the writ petition) have been withdrawn.
Pursuant to the requisition by the Health Department Government of Bihar, the respondent-Public Service Commission published advertisement no. 02 of 2007 inviting applications for appointment on the 32 reserved posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. It was mentioned in the advertisement that out of 32 posts, altogether 11 posts were reserved for scheduled castes candidates and 21 posts were reserved for scheduled tribes candidates. The petitioners applied seeking their appointment against the posts reserved for the scheduled castes category. After conducting the written examination, the respondent-Commission published the result of 38 candidates and called them for interview. The petitioners were included in the said 38 candidates. After the interview, the respondent-Commission recommended the names of Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 4 total 19 candidates out of which 8 candidates belonged to scheduled tribe category and 11 candidates belonged to scheduled castes category. In the letter of recommendation dated 13.02.2012 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 6 to 8), the respondent-Commission has mentioned that no recommendation could be made for 13 posts of scheduled tribe category for want of suitable candidates.
By letter dated 04.09.2012 and 15.01.2013, the respondent-State of Bihar/Department informed the respondent- Commission that the decision had been taken in accordance with the Rule 6 (a) of the Bihar Reservation Ordinance no. 3, 1992 to exchange the remaining unfilled 13 posts of scheduled tribes category with the scheduled castes category as those posts had remained vacant for three recruitment years i.e. 1989, 1997 and 2007 and the request was made for recommendation of the names of candidates for appointment on these 13 posts out of the successful candidates of the scheduled castes category. The relevant part of the letter dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-7) reads as follows:-
"............vc bl ekeys esa foHkkx }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd fofue; ds QyLo:i vuqlwfpr tkfr ds fy, miyC/k mDr 13 ¼rsjg½ inksa ij vk;ksx n~okjk vuq"kaflr 19 mEehnokjksa ds vfrfjDr "ks'k cps vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lQy mEehnokjksa dks vuq"kalk fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx ls izkIr dj Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 5 fu;qfDr dh tk;A vr% vuqjks/k gS fd cSdykWx ds vuqlwfpr tkfr ds :Ik esa fofue; fd;s x;s 13 inkas ds fo:n~/k vuqlwfpr tkfr ds "ks'k cps lQy mEehnokjksa dh vuq"kalk djus dh d`ik dh tk;A.............."
The respondent-Commission on 20.08.2013 resolved that the recommendation of the names for appointment as requested by the respondent-State could not be made in view of the fact that the provision of exchange of posts between two reserved categories was not mentioned in the advertisement no. 01 of 2007. By memo no. 173 dated 30.09.2013, the respondent- Commission intimated the said resolution to the respondent- State/department. This resolution of the respondent-Commission as contained in the aforesaid memo (Annexure-9) is impugned in this writ application.
The petitioners have filed interlocutory application no. 3798 of 2014, praying for addition of the relief, by amendment in the relief portion of the writ application, for quashing the decision of the Respondent-State/Department as contained in the letter dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no. 4 and 5) whereby the earlier request to the Respondent-Commission for making recommendation for appointment over the 13 posts as contained in the letters dated 15.01.2013 and 26.07.2013 has been withdrawn on the expressed Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 6 reason that according to the order of the High Court, the said decision was against the provision of Rule 6 (e) of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Questioning the resolution of the respondent- Commission not to make further recommendation as requested by the respondent-State/department and further the decision of the respondent-State/department to withdraw its request for further recommendation, Mr. Giri, the learned senior counsel has submitted that Section 4 Sub Rule 6(a) of the Act clearly postulates the circumstances under which the backlog vacancies reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for three recruitment years can be filled up by exchange and enables the State Government to take that decision to fill up these vacancies in that manner. It has been urged that the provisions of the Act have been framed to provide adequate representation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes in posts and services under the State Government and it is the State Government alone which has the jurisdiction to take decision effectuating the provisions of the Act and the respondent- Commission is not required to be consulted in this regard. It has been pointed out in this regard that Article 320 (4) of the Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 7 Constitution clearly excludes the role of a Public Service Commission with regard to the manner in which any provision is to be made in pursuance to Art. 16 (4) or the manner in which the provisions referred in Art. 335 of the Constitution of India can be given effect too. It has been propounded that respondent- Commission is bound to make recommendation for appointment after the requisition in that regard is made by the State Government and it has no jurisdiction to refuse the same on the specious ground that the eventuality of exchange of posts between two reserved categories has not been mentioned in the advertisement. It has also been submitted that all the petitioners have been placed within 32 ranks in the select list against the advertised 32 posts and are entitled to the appointment in view of the decision by the State Government to fill up the remaining vacancies of the scheduled tribes category by exchange from the successful candidates of scheduled castes category. With regard to the decision of the State Government to withdraw its earlier requisition made to the respondent-commission, it has been submitted that the said order of withdrawal has professedly been passed on the basis that this Court has found the decision to fill up the remaining vacancies by exchange under Section 4 Sub Rule 6
(a) of the Act to be against the provisions contained in Section 4 Sub Rule 6 (e) but in fact there has been no such adjudication and Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 8 order by this Court. It has been argued that as the said order dated 26.03.2014 as contained in Annexure-A of the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent no. 4 and 5 has been passed on the basis of a non-existent ground, the same cannot be sustained in law.
Mr. Lalit Kishore, the learned senior counsel for the respondent-Commission, in turn, has propounded that in view of the provision contained in Section 4 Sub Rule 6 (e) of the Act, the remaining vacancies of the advertisement no. 02/07 can be filled up only after fresh advertisement and fresh selection process and the applicability of Sub Rule 6 (a) of Section 4 is completely excluded in the present facts and circumstances. It has been submitted that the respondent-Commission has rightly taken the decision not to make further recommendation for appointment to fill up the vacancies of advertisement no. 02/07 by exchange as there has been no mention in the advertisement regarding the filling up the vacancies by exchange and the mode of selection cannot be altered after the onset of the selection process. The learned senior counsel has elaborately placed the provisions contained in Section 4 Sub Rule 6 (a) to (e) in order to bolster his submissions. However, no objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent-Commission to the prayer for amendment as made by the petitioners through the interlocutory application. Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 9
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has tried to justify the decision of the State Government to withdraw the requisition by letter dated 26.03.2004 on the basis of the order passed by this Court but during the course of submission, no such order passed by this Court could be pointed out. The learned counsel, however, has raised no objection to the prayer for amendment as made by the petitioners in the interlocutory application.
After considering the facts and the submission made on behalf of the parties, it becomes transparent that the controversy in this case centers around the legality of the decision of the State Government to fill up the remaining back log reserved category vacancies by exchange as envisaged in Sub Section 6 (a) of Section 4 of the Act and the legal sustainability of the resolution of the Public Service Commission refusing adherence to the same. The state legislature has enacted Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 providing for reservations in posts and services to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other backward classes and the manner in which the same is to be effected. The relevant portions of Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:-
Section 4. Reservation for direct recruitment.- All Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 10 appointments to services and posts in an establishment which are to be filled up by direct recruitment shall be regulated in the following manner, namely:-
1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6. (a) :- In case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment and promotion in vacancies reserved for them, the vacancies shall continue to be reserved for three recruitment years and if suitable candidates are not available even in the third year, the vacancies shall be exchanged between the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the vacancies so filled by exchange shall be treated as reserved for the candidates for that particular community who are actually appointed.
(b) In case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the Extremely Backward Classes and Backward Classes the vacancies so reserved shall continue to be reserved for them for three recruitment years and if suitable candidates are not available even in the third year also, the vacancies shall be filled by exchange between the candidates form the Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 11 extremely Backward and Backward Classes and the vacancies so filled by Exchange shall be treated as reserved for the candidates of that particular community who are actually appointed.
(c) In case of no-availability of suitable candidates for the vacancies reserved for the women of backward classes; the vacancies shall be filled in order to preference as follows:-
(i) by the candidates from the Scheduled Castes;
(ii) by the candidates from the Scheduled Tribes;
(iii) by the candidates from extremely
Backward Classes;
(iv) by the candidates from Backward Classes.
The vacancies so filled in the transaction shall be treated as reserved for the candidates of that particular community who are actually appointed.
(d) If in any recruitment year; the number of candidates of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes, extremely Backward and Backward Classes are less than the number of vacancies reserved from even after exchange formula the remaining backlog vacancies may be filled by general candidates after dereserving them but the vacancies so dereserved shall be carried forward for three recruitment years.
(e) If the required number of candidates of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 12 Extremely Backward and Backward Classes and Women of Backward Classes are not available for filling up the reserved vacancies, fresh advertisement may be made only for the candidates belonging to the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Extremely Backward and backward Classes and Women of backward Classes, as the case may be, to fill the backlog vacancies only.
The terminologies of the aforesaid provisions as contained in Sub Rule 6 (a) to (e) prescribing the manner in which the backlog vacancies of the reserved categories are to be filled up are clear and unambiguous. Sub Rule 6(a) deals with the contingency when suitable candidates from the schedule castes and schedule tribes are not available for appointment for three recruitment years and in such a case the provision of exchange of such vacancies between the schedule castes and schedule tribes has been made stipulating further that the vacancies so filled up by exchange shall be treated as reserved for the candidates of that particular community who are actually appointed. Sub Rule 6 (b) in similar manner provides for adopting the exchange formula for the vacancies reserved for extremely backward classes and backward classes. Sub Rule 6(c) prescribes the mode for filling up the vacancies reserved for women of backward classes in case of Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 13 non-availability of suitable candidates of that class. Sub Rule 6 (d) come into play only when in any recruitment year the number of candidates of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, extremely backward classes and backward classes is less than the number of vacancies reserved for them even after applying the exchange formula envisaged in Sub Rule 6 (a) and (b), then in that circumstance the remaining backlog vacancies is to be filled up by general candidates after dereserving them and such dereserved vacancies are to be carried forward for three recruitment years. Lastly Sub Rule 6(e) deals with the situation when the required number of candidates of all the reserved categories does not become available for filling up the reserved vacancies and in that case fresh advertisement is required to be made only for the candidates of the reserved category to fill up the backlog vacancies.
The provisions contained in Sub Rule 6 (a) to 6 (e) thus provide the manner for filling up the reserved vacancies visualizing different contingencies which may occur. The resort to Sub Rule 6(e) is to be taken only when the number of candidates of all the reserved categories, mentioned therein falls short of the number of vacancies reserved for them. On the other hand, the provision of Sub Rule 6 (a) is invoked when the candidates of either category are available for filling up the unfilled backlog Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 14 reserved vacancies for scheduled castes and scheduled tribe by applying the exchange formula between them. Manifestly these two provisions are to be applied in entirely different and distinct circumstances and the overlap between them will defeat the very purpose. The predominant intention of the legislature, as reflected from these provisions, is to fill up the backlog reserved vacancies even by adopting the exchange formula and not to opt for fresh selection process when the suitable candidates of the other category are available. As such this Court does not find substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent-Commission that in all cases where the required number of candidates of the specific reserved category is not available for filling up the reserved vacancies of that category, fresh advertisement will have to be made. This submission clearly overlooks the working out of the exchange formula to fill up the backlog vacancies from the suitable candidates of the other categories. If the suitable candidates of the other category are available, the remaining vacancies can be filled up by adopting the exchange formula envisaged in Sub Rule 6 (a) and (b) and in such a case there is no scope for initiating the selection process again after making fresh advertisement by resorting to the provision of Sub Rule 6 (e). The applicability of Sub rule (6 (e) is completely ruled out in such a case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-201415
At this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention the submission by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners made on the basis of Article 320 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India in his pointed objection when the leaned senior counsel for the respondent-Commission has tried to defend the resolution of the commission by extensively relying upon Sub Rule 6(e) of the Act. Although, the impugned resolution of the respondent-commission as contained in its letter dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure-9) has not mentioned Sub Rule 6 (e) of the Act as a ground for its refusal to make recommendation by the respondent-State but even otherwise also it is manifest from the provision of Art. 320 (4) of the Constitution of India that the Public Service Commission has no say when the State Government has chosen to exercise its discretion by virtue of Section 4 of Sub Rule 6(a) of the Act to fill up the backlog reserved vacancies by exchange of the vacancies between the two reserved categories. The Apex Court has also ruled in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh 2003 (11) SCC 559, in this regard, as follows:-
"...... It is certainly the responsibility of the Commission to make the selection of efficient people amongst those who are eligible for consideration. The unsuitable candidates could well be rejected in the selection by interview. It is not the question of subservience but there are Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 16 certain matters of policies, on which the decision is to be taken by the Government. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its limits too.
Independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure of the Government, as submitted on behalf of the appellant Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the provision of the law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy decision in a matter beyond its purview....."
The manifest ground on which the respondent-
Commission has refused to make further recommendation for appointment on 13 unfilled posts, pertaining to the Advertisement no. 02/07, out of the successful candidates of scheduled castes category as requisitioned by the respondent-State Government, is that such provision regarding exchange of vacancies between the two reserved categories has not been mentioned in the said Advertisement. However, no provision in the Act or any rule or regulation in this regard has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent-Commission which makes the mention of such Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 17 provision or any other enabling provision of law in the advertisement mandatory whereafter alone the policy decision can be taken by the state government. The Apex Court in the case of Superintending Engineer, Public Health Vs. Kuldeep Singh 1997 (9) SCC 199 while delving on the identical issue of interchangeability of backlog reserved vacancies between the two reserved categories has held that the duty to implement the rule of reservation is a constitutional duty to be performed honestly, sincerely and in its true content and spirit. The Apex Court has also quoted with approval the dictum expressed by Earl Cairns, L.C. in the House of Lords in Julius Vs. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) S.A.C. 214 (PP. 222-23) as follows:-
".......There may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so."
In the present case even when the specific provisions of the Act have not been mentioned in the advertisement still it is not far to seek that the posts which are to be filled up by Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 18 appointment have been reserved as provided in Section 4 of the Act and once the posts advertised for appointment are required to be filled up only by the reserved category candidates as mentioned in the advertisement, by virtue of Section 4, then there is no reason to exclude the applicability of Sub Rule 6(a) of the said Section 4 of the Act only on the basis that the said provision has not been mentioned in the advertisement. No such objection was raised by the respondent-Commission, on similar another occasion, as pointed out by the petitioners in paragraph-19 of the writ petition and not controverted by the respondent-Commission, when the recommendation (Annexure-10A) to fill up the remaining vacancies of the another reserved category was made in view of the decision by the State Government based on the exchange formula even though such eventuality was not postulated in the concerned advertisement (Annexure-10). In this view of the matter, it is difficult to uphold the resolution of the respondent- Commission not to make further recommendation as requisitioned by the State Government. Accordingly the said resolution dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure-9) is quashed.
Though the respondent-state Government/department in its counter affidavit initially stuck to its decision to fill up the 13 backlog reserved vacancies of the scheduled tribes category by exchanging the same with the scheduled castes category and Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 19 making requisition to the respondent-Commission to send the names of remaining successful candidates of the scheduled castes category for appointment on those posts. But later on it swerved and took a decision to withdraw its earlier requisition made to the respondent Commission by order as contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, purporting to act in accordance with the order of this Court. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has been emphatic in his submission that no such order adjudicating the requisition made by the respondent- State to the respondent-Commission to be contrary to Sub Rule 6
(e) of the Act has ever been passed. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has also failed to point out any final order passed by this Court in this regard but has referred to the order dated 03.03.2014 passed in this case as the basis for withdrawal of the requisition by the respondent-State. From the perusal of the order dated 03.03.2014 it appears that while adjourning the matter some observations were made to which the Principal Additional Advocate General was directed to look into clearly, there was no adjudication or final determination on this core issue. It was simply presumptive on the part of the respondent-state to carry the said notion. As such, after falling apart of the only ground mentioned in the letter dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure-A) as the basis for withdrawing the requisition for recommendation, the Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-2014 20 same cannot be sustained.
The interlocutory application (I.A. No. 3798 of 2014) filed on behalf of the petitioners is allowed and the relief for quashing the order dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit) is added to the writ application. For the reasons as aforementioned, the order passed by the respondent-state/department for withdrawing the requisition as contained in the letter dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure- A to the supplementary counter affidavit) is quashed.
The petitioners have claimed that in the final selection list, they have been placed within 32 rank. By its requisition dated 15.01.2013 and 26.07.2013( Annexure-7 and 8) the respondent- State/department has requisitioned the recommendation from the respondent-Commission of the names of the candidates out of the remaining successful candidates of the scheduled castes category for appointment over remaining 13 unfilled posts pertaining to advertisement no. 02/2007. Accordingly, the respondent- Commission is directed to recommend the names of the petitioners for appointment over the 13 unfilled posts pertaining to the advertisement no. 02/2007 if they are among the remaining successful candidates of the scheduled castes category and eligible for such recommendation for appointment in accordance with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.22979 of 2013 (10) dt.31-07-201421
The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid direction.
Devendra/- (V. Nath, J) U