IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3519 of 2001
RAJU KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
8. 14.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the State.
The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Primary Teacher.
He applied under the reserved category as a Scheduled Tribe candidate
with a case certificate of being “Gond’ issued under the signature of
the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, an officer competent to do so.
The Commission selected him as one of the candidates for
recommendation accepting his caste certificate. The controversy then
was created by the respondent State that notwithstanding the
recommendation of the Commission and its satisfaction of the caste
status of the petitioner, before appointment the petitioner was required
to bring a caste status certificate from the concerned District
Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the State with reference to the
advertisement which did not contain any such stipulation found it
difficult to support the pleading in the counter affidavit to that extent.
If the respondents were satisfied of the caste status of the
petitioner as “Gond” at the time they allowed him to sit for the
examination, the question of re-scrutinising or re-furnishing of caste
status looses its significance unless there be any subsequent
development raising doubts on the earlier certificate. Presently such is
not the case.
Learned Counsel for the State fairly acknowledges from a
government notification dated 20.7.2007 appended at Annexure 17 to
the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner that an earlier controversy
with regard to caste status of Gour, Gonr and Gond stands resolved
now when the State Government has acknowledge the Scheduled Tribe
status to “Gond” only and that no scheduled caste by the two other
aforesaid names existed.
It is also not in controversy in the present case that the caste
certificate issued in respect of the scheduled tribe status of the
petitioner as “Gond” by the Sub Divisional Officer remains valid and
has not been questioned or annulled by the respondents. Though the
counter affidavit sought suggest an issue of controversy in this regard
learned Counsel for the State fairly acknowledges that the caste
certificate of the petitioner issued by the Sub Divisional Officer has not
been called into question.
In that view of the matter the writ application is allowed. The
respondent State is directed to act upon the recommendation of the
Bihar Public Service Commissioner and Consider the appointment of
the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of
receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before them.
It is also clarified that for the purpose of seniority the petitioner
shall be deemed to have been appointed on the date that the person
immediately below him in the merit list of recommendation came to be
so appointed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner next prays for salary. This
Court is not inclined to grant him that relief since he has not worked
for the period in question.
Snkumar/-
(Navin Sinha,J.)