Vinod Kumar Pathak & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 November, 2017
Although exhaustive arguments have been advanced by either
side but the core issue which requires consideration is, whether in
view of the stipulations present under Section 18(3)(ii)(c) read
alongside Section 15 of „the Act‟ and the stipulations present in the
advertisement dated 12.5.2010 at Annexure-4 as it stood modified
vide corrigendum dated 16.2.2012 and 14.7.2012 at Annexures-5 and
6 respectively, which by itself provides for the break up of the
vacancies so notified as well as the roster to be followed and was
never put to challenge before any forum, and in view of the position
clarified by the writ Court in the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No.
6805 of 2012 (Dharamvir Prasad Vs. State) and analogous cases
which was affirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment at
Annexure- 8, there was any occasion for the respondents to delay the
preparation of the gradation list of Section Officers simply because its
notification issued subsequent to the selection process in question
bearing No. 11635 dated 21.08.2012 prescribing for benefit of
22
reservation in promotion, which was quashed by the writ Court and
affirmed by the Division Bench, was pending before the Supreme
Court even though the respondents had failed to obtain stay.