Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department. They are aggrieved by the decision contained in letter no. 4772 of 14.08.2008 of the department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand whereunder in respect of reservation to the State services/cadres for different posts, it has also been held that those employees, who have joined State of Jharkhand pursuant to their allocation of cadre from the parent State and were enjoying the benefit of reservation in the parent State shall avail of the benefit of reservation in the successor State of Jharkhand also, though they belong to the successor State of Bihar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that declaration of caste or tribe as done under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India by the President of India applies to the territory of the State for which such declaration is made. Therefore, those, who belong to Scheduled Caste category in the parent State of Bihar and who are resident of territories failing under successor State of Bihar, should not have been granted benefit of reservation on their allocation to the successor State of Jharkhand pursuant to bifurcation of the State. Therefore, petitioners have assailed the aforesaid letter dated 14.08.2008 and also promotion granted to the private respondents by the respondent-Department treating them in the category of Scheduled Caste. Petitioners have relied upon the judgments rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Kumari Kandhw and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. along with analogous cases vide judgment dated 01.05.2006, Annexure -1. Apart from that they have also relied upon the judgment rendered by learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Kumar Ram & Anr. and the State of Jharkhand and Ors., in W. P. (S) No. 6485 of 2007 vide judgment dated 27.05.2009, Annexure-7.

4. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners by filing counter affidavit. It is, their contention that plea taken by the petitioners is not legally sustainable.

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties, judgment at Annexure-1 does not apply to the facts of the present case as it relates to an exercise of fresh appointment made after bifurcation of parent State of Bihar in the successor State of Jharkhand where candidates were seeking benefit of reservation on the claim of their status as reserve category candidate in the parent State of Bihar. The case of the present petitioners or the private respondents are not of fresh appointment, but of allocation of serving employees to the successor State of Jharkhand on account of historical division of parent State of Bihar. The judgment at Annexure-7 does not lay down any preposition of law as it was only a direction to the respondent to come out with a concrete policy decision with regard to reservation.

6. The contention of the petitioners on the face of it appears to be fallacious while being tested on legal preposition and also provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. Section 2 (f) of the Act of 2000 defines law, which reads as under:-

“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(f) “law” includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order by-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Bihar;”

7. Apart from that Section 73 of the Act under part-VIII provides as under:-

“73. Other provisions relating to services:-(1)Nothing in Section 72 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State:

Provided that the conditions of service applica