Talk to a lawyer @499

News

A PERSON BELONGING TO THE RESERVED CATEGORY IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF RESERVATION IN EITHER OF THE SUCCESSOR STATE OF BIHAR OR JHARKHAND - SC

Feature Image for the blog - A PERSON BELONGING TO THE RESERVED CATEGORY IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF RESERVATION IN EITHER OF THE SUCCESSOR STATE OF BIHAR OR JHARKHAND - SC

The Supreme Court held that "a person is entitled to the benefit of reservation in either of the successor states of Bihar or Jharkhand upon their reorganisation in November 2000. One cannot claim benefits simultaneously in both states."

"Someone who is a member of the reserved category and is a resident of the State of Bihar, while participating in open selection in Jharkhand shall be treated as a migrant. It will be open to the members to participate in the general category without claiming benefits of Reservation and vice versa.'

The SC bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi held this while setting aside an order passed by Jharkhand HC. Pankaj Kumar was denied an appointment in the civil service exam in the SC quota in Jharkhand on the grounds that his address proof shows him a resident of Bihar. The single bench of Jharkhand HC allowed his claim while a divisional bench 2:1 set aside the order in an appeal by the state. And hence the present appeal.

HELD

The SC bench held that the collective reading of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, makes it clear that anybody born on or before November 2000 in Bihar and now that part is falling in any district of the successor state, i.e. Jharkhand becomes a resident of Jharkhand. Pankaj was born in a district in Jharkhand originally. He moved to Patna for a while and was later appointed as an assistant teacher in Ranchi on December 21, 1999, where he worked till 2008. In 2008, Kumar applied for a Civil Services Exam in Jharkhand and was called for an interview. He has submitted his Caste Certificate showing him a resident of Ranchi and his application for the Civil Services, which showed his ‘original residence’ as Patna. 

The bench said that the judgement of the High Court of February 24, 2020, is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside and directed the appointment of Pankaj Kumar within 6 weeks. 


Author: Papiha Ghoshal