Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Manoj Kumar, son of Late Harihar Bhagat – Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Ranchi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 4880 of 2013
Decided On : 11-04-2017
For the Petitioner:M/s Sudhir Kumar Sharma & Awnish Shankar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Divyam, J.C. to Mr. Sanjay Piperwal, Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, J.C. to G.P.-I.
The legal principle established is that the status of a candidate in a reservation category should be maintained after the reorganization of a State, and the candidate should be considered for appointment based on this status.
Headnote:
Reservation - Appointment to the post of Deputy Collector - Section 72(3) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 - Resolutions 4722 dated 14.08.2008 and 5448 dated 12.09.2011
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for his appointment as Deputy Collector, claiming that he should have been recommended over another candidate based on age and reservation category. The State argued that the petitioner was not entitled to reservation benefits in the limited examination for a fresh appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim regarding marks awarded in decimal fraction was not acceptable. However, it held that the petitioner should be considered as a B.C.-I candidate based on his status after the reorganization of the State.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to appointment as Deputy Collector based on marks, age, and reservation category, and the interpretation of Section 72(3) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's status as a B.C.-I candidate should be maintained after the reorganization of the State, and directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment as Deputy Collector.
Final Decision: The court remitted the case to the respondent to consider the petitioner's appointment as a B.C.-I candidate, if he qualifies and comes within the zone of consideration, within three months.
Ananda Sen, J,
Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to recommend his name for his appointment to the post of Deputy Collector, pursuant to the Limited Deputy Collectors Recruitment Examination-2013, in place of respondent no.4.
2. An advertisement was published on 08.10.2010 in the local newspaper for appointment, on the post of Deputy Collector, under Jharkhand Administrative Service cadre by limited examination. The said examination was for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Limited Deputy Collectors Recruitment Examination 2013. Since the petitioner had all requisite qualifications to appear in the said examination, he appeared in the said examination as B.C.I candidate.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was already appointed on the post of typist on 08.08.1997 in the erstwhile Government of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted the Jharkhand cadre and was posted as a typist in the Department of Co-operative, under the Government of Jharkhand.
4. The petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination but his name did not find place in the merit list. He enquired about the reasons and came to know that he obtained 137.70 marks out of 200, whereas another candidate, namely, Ajoy Kumar Verma, who is also a B.C.I candidate, obtained 137.82 marks out of 200. As Ajoy Kumar Verma obtained 0.12 marks more than the petitioner, Ajoy Kumr Verma was recommended for appointment.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no provision of awarding marks in decimal fraction. It is submitted that in a given circumstance when marks allotted to both the candidates is equal, the person, who is older in age has to be recommended. Since admittedly the petitioner is older in age than that of respondent no.4, he should have been recommended for appointment. His further claim is that Ajoy Kumar Verma, who was recommended against B.C.I category, was later on recommended as B.C.-II candidate and since the post of B.C.-I, fell vacant and the petitioner is the next candidate, is entitled to get the benefit under B.C.I category. He claims that his condition of service is protected by virtue of Section 72(3) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, and the State must consider him as B.C.I candidate.
6. State appeared and filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of section 72(3) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, as the appointment to the post of Deputy Collector, pursuant to the limited examination is a fresh appointment. Thus, section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, cannot be applied in the case of the present petitioner. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bihar and thus, he shall not be provided reservation of Backward Class-I by the State of Jharkhand. It has been lastly submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit. The State in their counter affidavit do not deny the fact that the respondent no.4, Ajoy Kumar Verma, who was earlier recommended as B.C.I candidate, has been reconsidered as B.C.II candidate and one post in B.C.I category fell vacant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent no.4 appeared in the limited examination as B.C.-I candidates. It is also admitted that the petitioner has obtained 0.12 marks less than that of respondent no.4. The petitioner's argument that marks cannot be awarded in decimal fraction is not acceptable. As per the petitioner himself the nature of examination was subjective but general study was objective. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that there was an embargo in awarding marks in decimal fraction. Since there was no restriction in awarding marks in decimal fraction, I find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in awarding marks in decimal fraction. Further in subje
