JUDGMENT
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
1. In both the appeals, as common question of law involved and as conflicting decisions have been given by the learned Single Judges in respect to selection, they were heard together arid are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. L.P.A. No. 532 of 2003 arises out of an order and judgment dated 14th May, 2003 passed by the learned Singh Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5649 of 2003; see Mohd. Asad v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (3) JCR 508 (Jhr). It was preferred by the writ petitioner lst respondent Md. Asad with two fold prayer le. (i) for direction on the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the BPSC) to publish the result of final examination of the primary Teachers (Urdu) held in pursuance of advertisement dated 9th October, 1991 published in the newspaper ‘HINDUSTAN’ (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and (ii) on publication of the result, in the event of being declared successful for his appointment against the existing vacancies.
3. Admittedly, in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 9th October, 1991, the writ petitioner-1st respondent Md. Asad applied and he qualified in the preliminary examination. Result was published in the year 1994. Therefore, the writ petitionerlst respondent appeared in the main examination held by the BPSC on 29th May, 1994, but his result was not published, Some persons were appointed prior to 14th November, 2000 i.e. prior to the reorganization of the State of Bihar and creation of the successor State of Jharkhand. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 14th May, 2003, while held that there was legitimate expectation on the part of the writ petitioner to know the result of the said examination and the authority, which conducted the examination, is bound to published the result, the BPSC was directed to publish the result of the aforesaid examination within two months with further direction to the competent authority to consider the case of writ petitioner-1st-respondent for his appointment against vacant post.
4. The other L.P.A. No. 850 of 2003 arises out of an order dated 9th September, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4513 of 2003. In the said case, the learned Single Judge while held that much water has flown after 1993, inasmuch as, the successor State of Jharkhand came into existence and the State of Jharkhand has constituted its own Public Service Commission, further held that this Court cannot issue direction to the respondents to publish the result of the said examination which was conducted, as far back as, in the year 1993 by the Bihar Public Service Commission and dismissed the writ petition.
5. The appellant-writ petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 4513 of 2003 also applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric Trained) in pursuance of same advertisement dated 9th October, 1991 published in the Newspaper ‘HINDUSTAN’. In their case also result was not published. One of them namely Birbal Saha-(Appellant No. 2) earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8144 of 1999 (R); see Bishal Sah v. State of Bihar, 2003 (1) JCR 572 (Jhr), for his appointment. A Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 23rd January, 2003 allowed him and members of the ‘Association’ to approach the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand who, in his turn, was directed to decide their claim. Thereafter, the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand rejected their claim vide Memo No. 1737 dated 19th July 2003 on the ground that no appointment in the State of Jharkhand can be made on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission.
6. In these appeals, the only question arises for determination is whether any appointment can be made under the State of Jharkhand on the recommendation of the BPSC.
7. Similar question fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Janoon Sanghi v. UPPSC State of Bihar, reported in 2002 (3) JCR 532 (Pat). In the said case, the Court held that the recommendation of BPSC is binding on the newly constituted State of Jharkhand.
8. A Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Chhaya Singh v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2003 (1) JCR 66 (Jhr) , having noticed the provisions of Section 77 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and other constitutional provisions, held that the recommendation of BPSC is not binding on the State of Jharkhand, both the States having not agreed for a joint Public Service Commission.
9. In the case of Maharaj Kumar Minz v. The State of Jharkhand, LPA 471 of 2003 a Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 23rd August, 2004 also held that after reorganization of the State, no appointment can be made in a post under the State of Jharkhand on the recommendation of the BPSC.
10. Similar problem cropped up after reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh and creation of successor State of Uttaranchal. The issue ultimately fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Sidharth Srivastava, reported in 2003 (4) Supreme 379. The question arose whether the selection made by the UPPSC prior to formation of the State of Uttaranchal is binding on the State of Uttaranchal or not so as to appoint selected candidates in the services of the State of Uttaranchal. The Supreme Court having noticed the provision of Section 78(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 and Article 323(2) of the Constitution of India, held that the recommendation of the UPPSC is not binding on the State of Uttaranchal so as to appoint selected candidates to the services in the State of Uttaranchal.
11. In view of the findings, as referred above, on the recommendation of BPSC, no appointment can be made in the State of Jharkhand, even if advertisement and selection made prior to reorganization of the State. Thus, in pursuance of advertisement dated 9th October, 1991, published in the newspaper ‘HINDUSTAN’ now no appointment can be made in the State of Jharkhand. The learned Single Judge in the case of appellant-Anil Kumar Jha and another, LPA No. 850 of 2003 has rightlydismissed the writ petition.
12. So far as the judgment dated 14th May, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5649 of 2002, as under challenge in L.P.A. No. 532 of 2003 is concerned, the direction given therein being against the decisions of this Court and against the law laid down by Supreme Court, as referred above, is fit to be set aside.
13. In the result, L.P.A. No. 532 of 2003 is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5649 of 2002 is set aside. The L.P.A. No. 850 of 2003 is dismissed.
N.N. Tiwari, J.
14. I agree.