Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No. 3548 of 2015 in writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 1524 of 2015. The said order is dated 22nd July, 2015 whereby the interim application preferred by these appellants for getting stay against the declaration of the result of 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Main) examination, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.
(2.) Counsel for the appellants submitted that Preliminary Test for 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission as well as the Main examination of 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission have already been held and there is reservation in the Main examination whereas, no reservation has been given by the respondents in Preliminary Test and, therefore, these appellants are seeking direction upon the respondent - State in the main writ petition. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the reservation in the Main examination will not be useful at all if no such reservation will be given in Preliminary Test. Jharkhand Public Service Commission can not work against the reservation policy of the State of Jharkhand. Counsel for the appellants is relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in : (2003) 11 SCC 559. Similarly the counsel for the appellants is also relying upon the decision of Allahabad High Court by which the reservation given in the Preliminary Test was quashed and the said order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly there was a reservation in the Preliminary Test in the State of Bihar which was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court and the said order has been stayed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. On the basis of these decisions it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that let the result of 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Main) examination be not declared otherwise the very purpose of filing of the writ petition will be frustrated. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the interlocutory application preferred by these appellants bearing Interlocutory Application No. 3548 of 2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1524 of 2015.
(3.) Counsel appearing for the State submitted that no direction may be given to the State for drafting a policy of reservation for Preliminary Test. State of Jharkhand has not enacted or floated any such policy of reservation even for preliminary test. It is further submitted by counsel for the State that what should be the reservation policy that is left at the discretion of the State of Jharkhand. There is already a reservation policy which is applicable in the main examination. This Court may not even replace a better policy than the existing one while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The wisdom of the policy cannot be challenged in the court of law. This Court can only check whether the policy is violative of the constitutional provision or not? It is further submitted that as per decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : (2009) 5 SCC 1 a reservation policy is not applicable in the Preliminary Test which is in fact, scrutiny examination. The marks of the Preliminary Test are not to be calculated for arranging the merit of the successful candidates, in a seriatim number. The very purpose of the preliminary test is that when large number of candidates are applying for the posts which are advertised, it is practically not possible to take written test of all these candidates and therefore, scrutiny examination is held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the interlocutory application filed by these appellants. Even otherwise also the writ petition is already pending before the learned Single Judge and is also listed for its final hearing and, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.;