GANPATI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint him on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Dep ment of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, pursuant to the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission"), as contained in letter no. 52 dated 10.9.2002. A further prayer has also been made by the petitioner seeking declaration to the extent that the terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be changed amidst the selection process or after its completion and appointments are to be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was a successful candidate of the examination held by the Commission pursuant to advertisement no. 99/98 and his case was recommended by the Commission to the appropriate Government for appointment, appointment letter could have been issued to the petitioner as against the reservation quota of scheduled tribe as he was number one. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the selection process, which started pursuant to advertisement no. 99/ 98, was required to be completed according to the existing reservation policy, whereby and whereunder 10% reservations were permissible for scheduled tribe candidates, and, in way, the authorities can be allowed to appoint persons according to the new reservation policy, which came into existence by virtue of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) (Amendment) (Bihar Act 17 of 2002) Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Bihar Act 17 of 2002"). It is also submitted that in view of the terms and conditions of the advertisement the same cannot be changed in the mid -stream of the selection process or even after its completion, and, therefore, the reservation policy of 2002, as referred to above, cannot apply in the facts and circumstances of the case, retrospectively.