Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 804 (JHR)

Chhaya Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2001-12-07

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
Order S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-Both the writ petitions have been preferred by petitioners for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding/directing tile respondents to issue letter of appointment in favour of petitioners against a post of Associate Teacher/Assistant Teacher in Indira Gandhi Residential Girls' High School Hazaribagh School for short. 2. Both the cases of the petitioners are that in pursuance of Advertisement No.10/99 published on 18.3.1999 by the Bihar Public Service Commission-B.P.S.C. for short, the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Associate Teacher/Assistant Teacher in the school, Hazaribagh. It was published for the posts of Sanskrit-one post reserved for Schedule Caste, Mathematics-one post unreserved. English-two posts both unreserved and Chemistry-one post unreserved. The petitioners applied for the post of English teacher. In pursuance of interview letter dated 29.2.2000 petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee on 24.3.2000. Several other candidates were also interviewed by the B.P.S.C. The result was published in the newspaper on 16.3.2000 wherein the petitioners were declared successful. Subsequently, the names of successful candidates including the petitioners were recommended by the B.P.S.C. to the State of Bihar in August, 2000. While the matter remained pending for issuance of letter of appointment by the State of Bihar, the new State of Jharkhand was created on 15th November. 2000 in pursuance of Bihar Re-or-ganisation Act, 2000. The posts and the school having fallen within the territory of the State of Jharkhand, the recommendation made by the B.P.S.C. was not acted upon. According to petitioners, the State of Jharkhand should act on the recommendation of the B.PS.C. and should issue letter of appointment in favour of re-commended candidate including the petitioners. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of Jharkhand with plea that the recommendation having made by the B.P.S.C., it was not acted upon by the State of ,Jharkhand. After re-organisation of the State and creation of State of Jharkhand since 15th November, 2000, the recommendation of B.P.S.C. is not binding. Reliance has been placed on Section 77 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 to suggest that the recommendation of B.P.S.C. is binding for the successor State of Bihar and not binding on the State of Jharkhand. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto. Reliance has been placed on Section 77 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 to suggest that the recommendation of B.P.S.C. is binding for the successor State of Bihar and not binding on the State of Jharkhand. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto. Senior Counsel was requested to assist the Court as a amicus curiae on the question as to whether the State of Jharkhand can act upon the recommendation of B.P.S.C. after Re-organisation of the State, having made prior to 15th November, 2000. Mr. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Section 77 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 and the relevant constitutional provisions to suggest that the State of Jharkhand cannot act on the recommendation of the B.P.S.C. for appointment against the post in question. To determine the issue, it is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions as mentioned hereunder. The provision to constitute a Public Service Commission for Union and each State has been stipulated under Article 315 of the Constitution of India. Under Clause 2 of Article 315 one or more States may agree to. have one joint Public Service Commission for that group of States subject to resolution to that effect if passed by the house or where there are two houses, by ,each of the house of the legislature of each of those State and the Parliament. 5. Admittedly, the successor State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand has not agreed for a joint Public Service Commission for both the States, nor any such resolution to that effect passed by the legislatures of either State of Bihar or Jharkhand. The Parliament has also not provided any joint State Public Service Commission, nor authorised such power of joint State Public Commission, to the Bihar Public Service Commission since after 15th November, 2000. Under Section 77 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, while provisions as to State Public Service Commission made, the public service commission us was existing prior to 15th November, 2000 has been made as Public Service Commission for the State of Bihar on and from the appointed day i.e. 15th November, 2000 as evident from the aforesaid provision quoted hereunder : "77. Provisions as to State Public Service Commission.-(1) The Public Service Commission for the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from the appointed day, be the Public Service Commission for the State of Bihar. Provisions as to State Public Service Commission.-(1) The Public Service Commission for the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from the appointed day, be the Public Service Commission for the State of Bihar. (2) The persons holding office immediately before the appointed day as Chairman or other member of the Public Service Commission for the existing State of Bihar shall, as from the appointed day, be the Chairman or, as the case may be, the other member of the Public Service Commission for the State of Bihar. (3) Every person who becomes Chairman or other member of the Public Service Commission for the State of Bihar on the appointed day under sub-section (2), shall- (a) be entitled to receive from the Government of the State of Bihar conditions of service not less favourable than those to which he was entitled under the provisions applicable to him; (b) subject to the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 316, hold office or continue to hold office until the expiration of his term of office as determined under the provisions applicable to him immediately before the appointed day. (4) The report of the Bihar Public Service Commission as to the work done by the Commission in respect of any period prior to the appointed day shall be presented under Clause (2) of Article 323 to the Governors of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, and the Government of the State of Bihar shall, on receipt of such report, cause a copy thereof together with a memorandum explaining as far as possible, as respects the cases, if any, where the advice of the Commission was not accepted, the reasons for such non-acceptance to be laid before the Legislature of the State of Bihar and it shall not be necessary to cause such report or any such memorandum to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State of Jharkhand." 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the Bihar Public Service Commission as was existing prior to appointed day i.e. 15th November, 2000 cannot be held to be a State Public Service Commission of the successor State of Jharkhand, nor the State of .Jharkhand cannot (sic) act on the recommendation of the B.P.S.C. for appointment against a post(s) in question. For the reasons aforesaid, the Bihar Public Service Commission as was existing prior to appointed day i.e. 15th November, 2000 cannot be held to be a State Public Service Commission of the successor State of Jharkhand, nor the State of .Jharkhand cannot (sic) act on the recommendation of the B.P.S.C. for appointment against a post(s) in question. It is a settled law that mere existence of name in a panel/select list or existence of vacancies does not give legal right to a candidate for being appointed against a post. In this connection, one may refer the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, AIR 1973 SC 2216 . 7. In the circumstances, the petitioners having no right to be appointed, even if their names are appearing in the select list or recommended by the B.P.S.C., no relief can be granted. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.