AKHILESH PRASAD versus JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 26-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
AKHILESH PRASAD
v.
JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 2022)
APRIL 26, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Service Law – Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Ss. 73 and
74 – Services after reorganisation of State – Appellant cleared the
Cooperative Development Officers exam held in 1994 conducted
by the then Bihar Public Service Commission under the Scheduled
Tribe category – The State of Bihar was bifurcated in successor
States viz. State of Bihar and newly formed State of Jharkhand, as
a result of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – After bifurcation of
the State of Bihar, Appellant’s service was allocated to the successor
State of Jharkhand and since then he had been in the service of
State of Jharkhand – An advertisement was issued for filling up the
posts of Deputy Collectors through limited departmental
examination, the benefit of reservation according to which would
be extended to only those who submit the appropriate caste
certificate from the Sub-Divisional officer posted in State of
Jharkhand – Appellant even though secured more marks as against
the cut-off for ST category in the departmental exam was declared
unsuccessful – The Appellant challenged his non-selection by filing
a Writ Petition which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High
Court of Jharkhand – Single Judge of the High Court held that the
petitioner was already working in the co-operative Department as
a reserved category candidate – He carried his reserved category
with him after bifurcation also – Thus, the State acknowledged the
petitioner as Scheduled Tribe category while he is working in Co-
operative Department under the State, but not treating him as
reserved category i.e. scheduled tribe for the purpose of limited
examination, is not acceptable neither his tenable in the eyes of law
– However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that since
the appellant had failed to comply with condition No.13 of the
Advertisement and since there was no certificate issued by any of
the competent authorities that he belonged to ST (Gond) category
in State of Jharkhand, the appellant could not be said to be
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 400
400
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
401
belonging to the reserved category of STs for the purposes of limited
departmental examination – On appeal, held: Per Uday Umesh
Lalit, J. (for himself and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.)
Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar’s case held the employees who
opt for service under a successor State after reorganization, their
existing service conditions would not be varied to their disadvantage
and would stand protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act – Subject
to the condition that such person would not be entitled to claim the
benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States,
such employees would be entitled to claim not only the benefit of
reservation in the service of the successor State to which they had
opted and were allocated, but they would also be entitled to
participate in any subsequent open competition with the benefit of
reservation – Single Judge of the High Court was therefore right in
allowing the writ petition – Division Bench of the High Court was
not justified in concluding that limited departmental examination
was nothing but direct recruitment from the open market – Per
Ravindra Bhat, J. (concurring): There is an obligation on the part
of Parliament, to provide clarity about the kind of protection,
regarding the status of such individuals forced to chose one among
the newly reorganized states, and ensure that they are not worse off
as a result of reorganization.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Per Uday Umesh Lalit, J. [For himself and Pamidighantam
Sri Narasimha, J.]
1. The employees who opt for service under a successor
State after reorganization, their existing service conditions would
not be varied to their disadvantage and would stand protected by
virtue of Section 73 of the Act. Further, subject to the condition
that such person would not be entitled to claim the benefit of
reservation simultaneously in both the successor States, such
employees would be entitled to claim not only the benefit of
reservation in the service of the successor State to which they
had opted and were allocated, but they would also be entitled to
participate in any subsequent open competition with the benefit
of reservation. [Para 17][415-B-C]
AKHILESH PR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.