Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS are Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department. They are aggrieved by the decision contained in letter No. 4772 of 14.08.2008 of the department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand whereunder in respect of reservation to the State services/cadres for different posts, it has also been held that those employees, who have joined State of Jharkhand pursuant to their allocation of cadre from the parent State and were enjoying the benefit of reservation in the parent State shall avail of the benefit of reservation in the successor State of Jharkhand also, though they belong to the successor State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that declaration of caste or tribe as done under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India by the President of India applies to the territory of the State for which such declaration is made. Therefore, those, who belong to Scheduled Caste category in the parent State of Bihar and who are resident of territories failing under successor State of Bihar, should not have been granted benefit of reservation on their allocation to the successor State of Jharkhand pursuant to bifurcation of the State. Therefore, petitioners have assailed the aforesaid letter dated 14.08.2008 and also promotion granted to the private respondents by the respondent -Department treating them in the category of Scheduled Caste. Petitioners have relied upon the judgments rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Kumari Kandhw and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. along with analogous cases vide judgment dated 01.05.2006, Annexure -1. Apart from that they have also relied upon the judgment rendered by learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Kumar Ram & Anr. and the State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 6485 of 2007 vide judgment dated 27.05.2009, Annexure -7.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have contested the claim of the petitioners by filing counter affidavit. It is, their contention that plea taken by the petitioners is not legally sustainable.;