Kavita Kumari Kandhw vs State of Jharkhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Jhk) 503

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DILIP KUMAR SINHA
Kavita Kumari Kandhw – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Deepak Roshan and Sangeeta Prasad, Advs. in W.P.(S) No. 578 of 2004, Umesh Pathak, Kishore Kumar Mishra and Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advs. in W.P.(S) No. 2403 of 2004, Anjani Kumar Verma, Adv. in W.P. (S) Nos. 639 and 3099 of 2004, R. Krishna and Siddhartha Ranjan, Advs. in W.P. (S) Nos. 3135 and 4625 of 2004, Altaf Hussain and Afaque Ahmad, Advs. W.P. (S) No. 3310 of 2004, A.K. Sahani and N.K. Sahani, Advs. in W.P. (S) No. 4175 of 2004, Rajiv Ranjan, A.K. Mishra, Faiz-ur-Rahman and Rajesh Kumar, Advs. in W.P. (S) No. 4363 of 2004; Mahua Palit, Adv. in W.P.(S) No. 4688 of 2005, V. Shivnath, Sr. Adv., Sweety Topno and Birendra Kumar, Advs. in L.P.A. No. 457 of 2004, Bharti Kumari, J.C. to G.P.-IV in L.P.A. No. 722 of 2004 and Manjul Prasad, S.C. (L and C) in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005
For Respondents/Defendant: A.K. Sinha, Adv. General in W.P.(S) No. 578 of 2004, M.K. Laik, Sr. S.C.-I in W.P.(S) Nos. 2403, 3099, 4175 and 4688 of 2004, R.N. Sahay, Sr. S.C.-II in W.P. (S) No. 3135 of 2004, H.K. Mehta, G.A. in W.P. (S) No. 3310 of 2004, S.K. Verma, S.C. (Mines) in W.P. (S) No. 4363 of 2004, K.K. Jhunjhunwala, G.P.-III in W.P. (S) No. 4625 of 2004, Sheela Prasad, G.P.-IV in W.P. (S) No. 639 of 2005, M.S. Akhtar, S.C.-II in L.P.A. No. 457 of 2004 and R. Krishna and Siddhartha Ranjan, Advs. in L.P.A. Nos. 570 and 722 of 2004
For the J.P.S.C.: S. Piprawal, Adv. in W.P. (S) Nos. 457, 570, 578, 639, 722, 2403, 3099, 3135, 3310, 4175, 4363, 4625 and 4688 of 2004

JUDGMENT

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. As the matter in all these writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals relates to appointment of Teachers from amongst the members of Backward Class, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, arising out of a common advertisement and common question of law being involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The main questions, involved in these cases, are:

(a) Whether a candidate, belonging to reserved category of the successor State of Bihar has any right to claim reservation in the services of the successor State of Jharkhand, as because it was a part of the erstwhile State of Bihar? and

(b) Whether a candidate, belonging to reserved category of other State, can claim reservation in the matter of appointment in the services of another State

3. Petitioners in the writ petitions and the private respondents of L.P.A. Nos. 722 of 2004 and 570 of 2005 as also the appellant of L.P.A. No. 457 of 2004 claim to be the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Categories. They belong either to the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh or other States. They applied for their appointment as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(Jhk) 503

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DILIP KUMAR SINHAKavita Kumari Kandhw – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DILIP KUMAR SINHA
Kavita Kumari Kandhw – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent