Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 269 (JHR)

Sanjeet Bakshi v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-04-19

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The case relates to appointment in Bihar Administrative Service in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- in pursuance of 42nd Combined Competitive Examination held by Bihar Public Service Commission (B.P.S.C.). The petitioner, who is eligible for appointment, applied in pursuance of 42nd Combined Competitive Examination as was being conducted by B.P.S.C. and appeared in the written test. He claimed to be a S.T. candidate and was provided with Roll No. 104895. The result of written test was published and was declared successful in the written test and viva-voce test. In the initial result, his name was recommended or the post of Sub-Election Officer which was modified by B.P.S.C. when subsequent result published in the newspaper on 29.4.2000 wherein the Roll number of petitioner was published and recommended for appointment to the Bihar Administrative Service. 2. When the matter was taken up by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department of the State of Bihar. it by its letter No, 4851 dated 8.6.2000 circulated the names of all successful candidates including the petitioner for appointment in Bihar Administrative Service and asked the concerned District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner to submit his verification report so that appropriate order of appointment may be issued. Thereafter a notification No. 7714 dated 30.9.2000 was issued whereby 61 persons were given appointment but no order of appointment was issued in favour of petitioner. In the last portion of the said notification dated 30.9.2000, it was mentioned that the verification of petitioner could not be made by the said date and thereby the order of appointment was not issued for the present. Subsequently, no order of appointment having issued, the present writ petition was preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to issue order of appointment in view of the recommendation made by the Board and the letter dated 8.6.2000 read with notification dated 30.9.2000. 3. The petitioner has specifically stated that the Deputy Commissioner. Ranch! verified the matter and he has already intimated that the petitioner is a S.T. In fact, the certificate of S.T. was allowed in favour of petitioner in the light of direction of this Court in his case in C.W.J.C. No. 3357/92(R), disposed of on 23.2.1993. 4. Counsel for the B.P.S.C. and State of Bihar were allowed time to file counter-affidavit. By last order dated 26.3.2001. 4. Counsel for the B.P.S.C. and State of Bihar were allowed time to file counter-affidavit. By last order dated 26.3.2001. while further time was allowed, it was made clear that the Court may dispose of the case by the next date even in absence of counter-affidavit. 5. Mr. Mehata, counsel for the B.P.S.C. states that he has received instruction that B.P.S.C. has verified the caste certificate and has intimated the State of Bihar that the petitioner is a member of S.T. on the basis of certificate granted by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and such certificate is genuine. 6. Mr. A. Allam, counsel for the State of Bihar submits that he has not received any instruction in spite of repeated request. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, petitioner having declared successful, his name having recommended by the B.P.S.C., others having given appointment the respondent-State of Bihar is directed to issue formal order of appointment in favour of petitioner, appointing him in the Bihar Administrative Service but not later than a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that the order of appointment may be prospective in nature but will not affect the seniority of the petitioner which is to be determined on the basis of position of the petitioner in the merit list. 9. So far as option for transfer of petitioner in the Jharkhand cadre is concerned, petitioner, on his appointment, may make such request to the competent authority through the Secretary. Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. Government of Bihar, who is to decide such claim. 10. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations/ directions, 11. Petition allowed.