High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 1 October, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 1 October, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CWJC No.994 of 2006

                 RAVINDRA KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM LAKHAN
                 PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIBHADRAPATI,
                 P.S. UCHKAGAON, GOPALGANJ.

                                               Versus

                 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
                    AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
                    PATNA.
                 2. JOINT SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
                    GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
                 3. DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF
                    BIHAR, PATNA.
                 4. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS
                    SECRETARY, PATNA.
                 5. OFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE
                    COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.
                                       -----------

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vikas Mohan
For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to S.C. III
For the B.P.S.C. :- Mr. Kumar Brajendra Nath.

——

3 01/10/2010 The Court has heard learned counsel for the

parties in detail on the question of rejection of claim of

the petitioner by the Bihar Public Service Commission

(hereinafter called the Commission) to treat him as a

Scheduled Tribe candidate and against the withdrawal of

the recommendation made earlier for appointment on the

post of Inspector, Weights and Measures. Annexure-17

is a detailed order which has been passed by the
-2-

Commission in the deliberation held of all its members

and the clear fact which has emerged therein is that from

the year 1990 onwards Gonds are treated as Backward

caste and not Scheduled Tribes in the district of

Gopalganj. This is based on various circulars issued by

the State of Bihar and the department related thereto.

There is weight in the reasoning given by the

Commission dependent upon the state of affairs as

existed when the question of appointment of the

petitioner arose. This Court is not convinced that the

decision rendered by the Commission is erroneous and

requires interference.

Learned counsel thereafter submits that if the

petitioner is given a chance, he can establish his claim

and get himself declared as Scheduled Tribe from a

forum which will be best suited to him. In this regard,

this Court has no objection if the petitioner wants to

embark upon but no order or direction can be issued in

favour of the petitioner to quash the order of the

Commission or to direct them for appointment of the

petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe candidate in view of the

facts and circumstances rendered in the impugned order.
-3-

This writ application has no merit. It is

dismissed with the observation as aforesaid.

AMIN/                   (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)