SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Pat) 1996

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Punam Kumari D/o Baidyanath thakur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner was one of the candidates who was selected by Bihar Public Service Commission for being appointed on the post of District Fishery Officer- cum-Chief Executive Officer/Assistant Fishery Director. According to petitioner her name was recommended by BPSC and her name figured at serial no. 8 but she was not appointed due to intervening circumstances. The primary reason which kept her out from appointment is bifurcation of the State of Bihar and creation of separate State of Jharkhand. In terms of Reorganization Act, 2000 and decision taken thereto, one third vacancies arising in the undivided Bihar had to be surrendered to the State of Jharkhand. It is evident from the record that when the advertisement was issued the total number of vacancies indicated included the undivided Bihar.

3. Since one third vacancies were taken away, the total number of candidates who could be appointed in the general category came down to five. With this development obviously the petitioner could not be appointed despite her name figuring in the original select list forwarded by the BPSC.

4. Besides this development, learned counsel for the pe









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top