Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior advocate for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Lall, learned advocate for the High Court.

2. The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 20.09.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13012 of 2014 by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby his appointment has been cancelled and in his place, one Mukesh Kumar/respondent no.5 has been directed to be appointed against an advertisement for appointment on Class-IV post in the judgeship of Saran at Chapra dated 28.04.20211. In the advertisement, the percentage of reservation for various Classes was declared and for the Backward Class, to which category appellant belonged, was given 12% reservation.

3. The respondent no.5/writ petitioner was not selected as the appellant had been placed at serial no.1 in the Backward Class Category having obtained 21 marks. Under the directions of the High Court, a wait list but was prepared with representation of various categories in which the respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.1.

4. The respondent no.5 was content with his not being employed against the appointment process, referred to above, but when he learnt that the appellant could not have been given the benefit of reservation in Backward Class as he belonged to caste “Kandu” which has been declared a Backward Class only in the State of Uttar Pradesh and not in the State of Bihar, he approached this Court with a sole plea that the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 (for short the “Reservation Act, 1991”), has been breached which is impermissible in the eyes of law.

5. It was thus asserted by respondent no.5 that in case the appointment of the appellant was not found to be regular in terms of the Reservation Act, 1991, there was no way in which he should have been allowed to continue, leaving respondent no.5 unemployed.

6. Before the writ Court, the appellant had argued that the advertisement never specified that the benefit of reservation would be available for and given only to the residents of Bihar.

7. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior advocate representing the appellant submits that in later/subsequent appointment processes, it is normally specified that the reservation benefit shall be given to the Backward Classes only if they are registered in the State of Bihar. Since the appellant had applied in response to the advertisement without any such specification, he cannot be fastened with the allegation of any misrepresentation or suppression of basic/particulars. The appellant has been in service of the Civil Court, Saran, on Class-IV posts for the last six and a half years.

8. The dictionary of the Reservation Act, 1991 defines State to include the Government, the Legislature and the Judiciary of the State of Bihar. The modus of reservation for direct recruitment clearly prescribes that candidates residing out of the State of Bihar would not be accorded benefits of reservation under the Reservation Act, 1991.

9. The Civil Court Rules of Bihar follows the aforenoted provisions of the Reservation Act, 1991.

10. Section 17 of the Civil Court Rules clearly provides that only such number of vacancies shall be reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. Other Backward Classes and Physically Handicapped which as per the policy decision of the State of Bihar.

11. Certain facts are undisputed. The appellant hails from “Kandu” caste which has been listed in the category of Backward Class in the State of Bihar. The appellant has his registration as “Kandu” caste from the State of Uttar Pradesh where he had been residing from before his employment.

12. There cannot be any cavil on the declaration of the learned single Judge that the appointment of the appellant was bad; but this Court has been persuaded to get into some other set of facts which was not urged before the learned single Judge. We say so with