Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 531 (PAT)

Lali Ram v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-17

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. In this writ application, the petitioner, who is the Junior Engineer, has sought for direction to the respondents to treat him in the category of Scheduled Caste since he is "Dusadh" by caste, which falls in the category of Scheduled Caste and grant him all consequential benefits from due date, i.e., the date of his appointment, including grant of promotion along with the candidates belonging to the said category. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its officials in the Department of Water Resources, namely, respondents no. 1 to 6, and a reply thereto has also been filed by the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the grievance of the petitioner was referred to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department for opinion and guidelines in view of the Government decision, contained in Annexure A, as well as the provisions relating to it in the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991. It has been submitted that as per the provision in the Act as well as the amendment in sections 3 and 4 by Bihar Act 15 of 2003, the candidates residing outside the State of Bihar cannot claim for benefits of reservation under the said Act. Further, it has been submitted that as per section 4 of the Amended Act, notwithstanding such repeal under sub-section (1), anything done or any action taken according to letter no. 70 dated 11th June, 1996 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, contained in Annexure A, are deemed to be legal as if the Act was in force on the date when the said letter was in force. Learned counsel for the State has, thus, submitted that under section 4 of the Original Act in case of promotion, reservations are to be made only for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the same proportion as provided in the said provision and as per the amended provision of third proviso, the candidate residing outside the State of Bihar cannot claim for the benefit of reservation under the Act. Learned counsel for the State submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner is a candidate from outside the State of Bihar and, as such, the said benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner is a candidate from outside the State of Bihar and, as such, the said benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that without going into the question of constitutional validity of any such enactment, this writ petition can be disposed of by granting relief to the petitioner as even assuming that the validity of such provision is upheld, the petitioner cannot be denied of the treatment under Scheduled Caste category only because he is a candidate from outside the State of Bihar as he was appointed on 13.4.1988 i.e., much prior to enactment of the aforementioned provision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Annexure 29 and Annexure 28, the candidates who belong to Scheduled Caste category and appointed much later than the petitioner have been given promotion in the Junior Selection Grade as well as the Senior Selection Grade with effect from 19.8.1993 and 19.8.1995 or from later date respectively, but the petitioner has arbitrarily been denied the same benefit only because the State authorities feel that the case of the petitioner is covered by the provision of the aforementioned Act, which is not true as the retrospectivity of the said Act has also been given from later date, i.e. 11.6.1996 whereas the promotion to the junior of the petitioner has been given a date earlier to 11.6.1996. 5. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from Annexures 29 and 28 that one Om Prakash Suman, who was appointed later than the petitioner on 19.8.1989, has been given the promotion in the Junior Selection Grade with effect from 19.8.1993 and in the Senior Selection Grade with effect from 19.8.1995. Similarly, there are other persons also in Annexures 29 and 28 who were appointed later have been given promotion with effect from a date prior to 11.6.1996, for which the learned counsel for the State has failed to show any valid justification. On the contrary, it appears from the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner has not been considered solely on the ground that he is a candidate from outside the State of Bihar. 6. On the contrary, it appears from the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner has not been considered solely on the ground that he is a candidate from outside the State of Bihar. 6. I may indicate here that from Annexures 28 and 29 it appears that even though Om Prakash Suman belongs to Uttar Pradesh, but he has been given the benefit whereas the same benefit has been denied to the petitioner without any valid reason. In my opinion, the action of the respondent-authorities is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution in not treating the petitioner under the Scheduled Caste category and considering his case alongwith the cases of others for promotion to the Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade. 7. The writ application is, thus, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the Schduled Caste category for promotion in the Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade with effect from the date when his juniors have been granted the said promotion, vide Annexures 29 and 28, and issue necessary order within six weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.