Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 295 (PAT)

Sangeeta Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that though she has been recommended for appointment in the scheduled tribe category and there is no rival candidate in that category, till date the State authorities have not issued appointment letter even after completion of the necessary formalities. 3. It appears that the petitioner was a successful candidate in the examination held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for the post of lecturer in Home Science in Government College, Gulzarbagh/Gardanibagh. The petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe category and one post was reserved for scheduled tribe category and there was no rival candidate and, therefore, the Commission, pursuant to the result of the examination, recommended the case of the petitioner to the State Government and the State Government even after completing the necessary formalities for her appointment, sat tight over the matter. The stand of the Commission is that once the Commission has recommended the case of the petitioner, it becomes functus officio unless a fresh requisition is sent to it for fresh advertisement etc. for the post in question. It is also stated that till date no requisition was sent to the Commission for re-advertisement of the post in question. The stand of the State in the counter affidavit, earlier filed, is that the Department of Higher Education has obtained roster clearance from the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 19.9.1997 and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department had approved the roster clearance by which two posts were admitted for general category and one post for scheduled tribe category. 4. Now an affidavit has been filed again on behalf of the State stating therein that the Department of Higher Education has again made fresh requisition to the Commission for obtaining fresh recommendation as per reservation policy as suggested by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department vide letter no. 535 dated 18.4.2001. Letter dated 18.4.2001 has been brought on record and marked as Annexure A to todays affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 535 dated 18.4.2001. Letter dated 18.4.2001 has been brought on record and marked as Annexure A to todays affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The statement made in paragraph 3 of todays affidavit, has not properly been verified and in view of the stand of the Commission that it has not received any requisition after publication of the result and recommendation of the case of the petitioner till date, in my opinion, no reliance can be placed on the statement made in paragraph 3 of todays affidavit. It is not in dispute that even after roster clearance one post has been cleared for scheduled tribe category and the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe category and there is no rival candidate. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission of the name of the petitioner, she was medically examined and other formalities were completed. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the State authorities are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in accordance with law forthwith and not later than four weeks from today. 6. With the aforementioned observations/directions, this application is disposed of.