Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1787 (PAT)

Bihar Police Mens Association v. State Of Bihar

2008-12-19

BARIN GHOSH, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2008
JUDGEMENT Barin Ghosh and S.K.Sharma JJ. 1. Heard. 2. In the writ petition, the appellant contended that the decision to apply reservation policy of the Government, as enshrined in the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, in relation to vacant posts of constables to be supplied in BMP-16 was improper. it was contended that BMP-16 is constituted of only combatant Ex-Service Men and amongst them there was no reservation. It was, therefore, contended or insinuated that the reserved posts, as would be available in BMP-16 cannot be supplied. 3. The original argument as was advanced, that is to say BMP-16 has been reserved exclusively for combatant Ex-Service Men, for the reason recorded in the order under appeal has not been repeated before us. It was only contended that inasmuch as there had been and has been no classification amongst Ex-Service Men, it may not be possible to supply the reserved vacancies. It was next contended that in any event BMP-16 was raised in 1982 and since then the vacant posts in BMP-16 had been supplied only by Ex-Service Men without any reservation. It was lastly contended that the State Government was approached for applying reservation policy for the vacancies in BMP-16, but the State Government did not accede to the request. 4. We have read the letter of the State Government, upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant and which had been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the Commandant of BMP-16. The said letter would clearly indicate that the proposal was given on behalf of BMP-16 not to apply reservation policy of the State in relation to the vacant posts available in BMP-16, but the State Government refused to do so. In this connection, it would be proper to take note of Section 3 of the said Act, which suggests that the said Act shall not apply in relation to, amongst others, such other posts of State Government as may from time to time by an order be specified. In this connection, it would be proper to take note of Section 3 of the said Act, which suggests that the said Act shall not apply in relation to, amongst others, such other posts of State Government as may from time to time by an order be specified. The letter, referred to above, would show that an approach was made to the State Government not to apply the said Act to the vacant posts available in BMP-16, but the State Government refused to do so and accordingly, it did not specify vacant posts available in BMP-16 as such other posts to which the said Act shall not supply. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that since the date of coming into force of the said Act, i.e. since 7th January, 1992, vacant posts available in BMP-16 are to be supplied in accordance with the reservation policy enshrined in the said Act. It is possible that from 1982 until the subject advertisement was published in November 2000, reservation policy was not applied to the posts filled up in BMP-16, but that being contrary to the provisions of the Act, the same cannot be treated as a precedent. On the basis thereof no right can be founded. It is possible that all Ex-Service Men, who have responded to the said advertisement belong to general category and accordingly, it is also possible that the posts, as advertised, may not be filled up. On the basis of such possibility, however, it cannot be said that application of the reservation policy, as contained in the said Act, is inappropriate. In the event vacancies for the reserve category persons cannot be supplied, effort should be made to fill up the same pursuant to the Act. The Act itself suggests what is required to be done. 5. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal by which the writ petition was dismissed. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal.