JUDGMENT :

H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent State of Jharkhand, as also learned counsel for the State of Bihar in all these appeals.

Facts of LPA No.282 of 2015 and analogous matters.

2. The appellants in LPA No.282 of 2015 and its analogous matters, (except LPA No. 80 of 2018), are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 30.01.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Singh Judge in W.P. (S) No.3737 of 2008 and its analogous matters.

3. All these appellants were appointed as constables, on the posts reserved for S.C. / S.T. / O.B.C., in Jharkhand Police, after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand from the erstwhile State of Bihar. After about three years of service, their services were terminated on the ground that they were the permanent residents of the State of Bihar, and had produced the caste certificates issued by the authorities in the State of Bihar. Subsequently, it was found that after bifurcation of the State of Bihar, they could not be given the benefits of reservation on the basis of the caste certificates issued by the authorities of their respective districts in the State of Bihar, and accordingly, by the impugned orders dated 04.04.2008 and 16.06.2008, issued by the competent authorities, the services of the appellants were terminated. The appellants challenged the order of termination by filing W.P.(S) No. 3737 of 2008 and analogous writ applications, all of which were heard together and were dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 30.01.2015, passed by the Writ Court, relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S Medical College & Ors., reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130, Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharastra & Anr. Vs. Union of India& Anr., reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244, and M.C.D. Vs. Veena & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 571. The Writ Court also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kavita Kumari Kandhaw & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) JCR 512 (Jhr), wherein also, relying upon the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court had held that the Backward Class of one State cannot be deemed to be so in relation to the other State, and the caste certificate issued by one State, is not valid in other State. The Writ Court, thus, dismissed the writ applications of the appellants writ petitioners.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed these L.P.As. While these matters were being heard by the Division Bench on 09.08.2018, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that though the question that the Backward Class of one State cannot be deemed to be so in relation to other State and the certificate issued by one State, is not valid for other State, was no more a question res-integra, but the question whether the persons born prior to 15.11.2000 in the erstwhile unified State of Bihar, belonging to the reserved category and enjoying the benefits thereof throughout the territory of the unified State, can subsequently be denied the same benefits of reservation in the divided State of Jharkhand, only because of the fact that the State has been bifurcated with effect from 15.11.2000, for which, those persons were not at all responsible, particularly, when the castes, to which the appellants belonged, were recognized to be in the reserved categories even in the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation. This Court took a view that similar question had been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors., reported in (2004) 9 SCC 481, which had cropped-up due to bifurcation of the particular region in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which after reorganisation of the State came in the State of Maharastra. The Hon'ble Apex Court had framed the following question :-

"5. ---------------. In other words, the question