KHICHRI RAM v. The State of Bihar
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Original judgment text
WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14726 OF 2008 BIJULI SON OF SRI NEUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAXMIPUR, P.S. HATTA DISTT. DEWARIA (U.P) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER UCHCH VIDYALAYA HARSAR DHANAUTI, DISTT. SIWAN ……PETITIONER. VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO.14881 OF 2008 KESHWAR PRASAD SON OF LATE NATHAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARMAHI, P.S. RAMPUR BUJURG (HATA), DISTT. KUSHINAGAR (U.P.) AT PRESENT 7 POSTED AS HEADMASTER AYODHYA AGRAWAL SANATAN DHARMA HIGH SCHOOL, BADKAGAON, SIWAN ………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14723 OF 2008 MANAGER PRASAD SON OF LATE BHAAGAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHUI SANGRAM, P.S. MARKAR, DISTT. DEWALIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER SWAMI KARMDEO YAMUNA RAM UCHCH VIDYALAYA MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT. SIWAN …..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14859 OF 2008 RAJJU PRASAD SON OF LATE JAYKARAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELASULTANPUR, P.S. BELASULTANPUR, DIST. MAU (U.P) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL BAKHARIA, DIST. BHOJPUR ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14777 OF 2008 8 RAJENDRA SON OF LATE SUMER, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAWANI, P.S. SIMARI JAMALPUR, DISTT. MAU (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER KANYA UCHCH VIDYALAYA ASANI, BHOJPUR …….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14734 OF 2008 RAM NARESH PRASAD SON OF LATE PATARU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAURIYA KAJI, P.O. NAWALPUR, P.S. SALEMPUR, DISTT. DEWARIYA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER RAJENDRA SINGH UCHCH VIDYALAYA LOHGANJAR, DISTT. SIWAN …..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14625 OF 2008 SUDARSHAN RAM SON OF LATE DEV NANDAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AWAYAN, P.S. UDHAV, DISTT. BALIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER TRIBHUWAN SUBHASH B.U.V.SIMARI, DISTT. BUXAR ….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14626 OF 2008 9 LAL BAHADUR RAM SON LATE PANCHMI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALEJI, P.S. SIKANDERPUR, DISTT. BALIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER UCHCH VIDYALAYA AGIWAN BAZAR, DISTT. BHOJPUR ….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14627 OF 2008 RAM SHARAN PRASAD MAURYA SON OF LATE YAMUNA PRASAD MAURYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUNDERA RATAN PATTI, P.O. AND DISTRICT KUSHINAGAR (U.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, RAM PRASAD BHAGWATI CHARAN ADARSH TOWN HIGH SCHOOL, SHEIKHPURA …..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA AND
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14632 OF 2008 RAM BRIKSH PRASAD SON OF SHRI LADAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKULHAR KALA, P.S. BELWA KARKHANA (FAZILNAGAR), DISTRICT KUSHI NAGAR (U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, G.A.HIGH SCHOOL, KATEYA, GOPALGANJ ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA AND
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. 10 WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14633 OF 2008 BAL KRISHNA SON OF NANHU PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHALUHI MADARII PATTI, P.O.- HASMA, DISTRICT- KUSHII NAGAR. (U.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, MAHENDRA DAS HIGH SCHOOL, NECHUA JALALPUR, GOPALGANJ. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA AND
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14634 OF 2008 RAMDEO, SON OF SHRI RAM SNEHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHATAHI BABU, P.O. AHIRAULI BAZAR, DISTRICT- DEORIA (U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, HAZARILAL HIGH SCHOOL, BALIWAN, GOPALGANJ. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA AND
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14636 OF 2008 MOTI CHANDRA RAM, SON OF LATE SHEO PRASAD RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHAJAULI, P.S.- GARHWAR, DISTRICT- BALIA (U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, PARWATI MANDAL HIGH SCHOOL, HARDIA, PURNEA. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA AND
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 11
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14658 OF 2008 KAMTA PRASAD, SON OF LATE SABHAI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUTIRCHAKE, DISTRICT- CHHATRIPUR, JAUNPUR(U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, KISHANGANJ. KUTIRCHAKE, P.O.- P.S.- …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA AND
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14858 OF 2008 DENI PRASAD SON OF BANJHU RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NYARIPUR P.S. BARESAR DISTRICT- GAJIPUR (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER HARDEV RAI HIGH SCHOOL, BIHIYA CHOURASTA, BHOJPUR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY,OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, …….PETITIONER PATNA
4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS.
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14984 OF 2008 GENA PRASAD SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALYANPUR P.S.- GOPALGANJ DISTT. GOPALGANJ. VERSUS …….PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 12
2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOPALGANJ. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14985 OF 2008 SATYA NARAIN PRASAD, SON OF THE LATE DUKHAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAJIPUR P.S. SARAN DISTT. SARAN. …….PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14986 OF 2008 RAM YADI PRASAD, SON OF KHADAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILAGE MURHO, P.S.- MADHEPURA, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA ……….PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14987 OF 2008 RAM KUNWAR SON OF LATE KHURBHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURSELA P.S.- KURSELA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. ……..PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. 13 ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14988 OF 2008 RAMA SHANKAR, SON OF LATE SHEOPUJAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PERSA, P.S.- SARAN DISTT. SARAN. VERSUS …….PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.JC. NO. 14989 OF 2008 RAMANAND SON OF LATE ALAGU PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FULHARA, P.S.- KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. ………PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14990 OF 2008 RAGHUNATH RAM SON OF LATE BATI RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UCHANPOUR P.S.- SARAN, DISTT. SARAN. ………PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14992 OF 2008 14 RAM CHANDRA SON OF LATE BANSHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELWA BUJURG TOLA NOORAN, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ DIST. GORAKHPUR (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER UMA DEVI MISHRA BALIKA UCHCH VIDYALAYA KATIHAR. ……PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY,OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS.
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14993 OF 2008 SHIV BACHAN RAM, SON OF LATE GANGA VISHUN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARIMCHAK, P.S.- CHAPRA (SARAN) DISTRICT- CHAPRA. VERSUS …..PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14994 OF 2008 MAHESH PRASAD SON OF RAMNATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PAHALICHAK, P.S.- SONEPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN. …….PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14995 OF 2008 15 GAYA NATH SON OF RAM BRATI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.S.- EKMA, DISTRICT- SARAN. ………PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14996 OF 2008 RAJA RAM SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAUR BAZAR, P.S.- SAHARSA, DISTRICT- SAHARSA. …….PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SAHARSA ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14997 OF 2008 HIRA PRASAD, SON OF RAM SURAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEMARIA, P.S.- REVALGANJ, DISTRICT- SARAN. VERSUS …..PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14998 OF 2008 BHARAT PRASAD, SON OF LATE INDER PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAKIA, P.S.- GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. VERSUS …….PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 16
2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOPALGANJ. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14999 OF 2008 PARSURAM PRASAD, SON OF LATE KEDAR RAM RESIDENT OF MAUSAR, P.S.- SARAN, DISTRICT- SARAN. ……..PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15000 OF 2008 NARSINGH PRASAD, SON OF LATE LALJI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHDIPUR, P.S.- KHAGARIA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. …….PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KHAGARIA. ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15001 OF 2008 RADHA KRISHNA, SON OF LATE RAJPATI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANGAUR, P.S.- KHAGARIA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. VERSUS ….PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KHAGARIA. 17 ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15002 OF 2008 MAHESH PRASAD, SON OF LATE BHAPSI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PILPUR, P.S.- DIGHWARA, DISTRICT- SARAN. …..PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15003 OF 2008 RAM NAGINA RAM, SON OF LATE MUSAI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYAGAON, P.S.- SARAN, DISTRICT- SARAN. ……PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA ……..RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15010 OF 2008 SHYAM NARAIN RAM, S/O- LATE JANG BAHADUR RAM, RESIDENT OF VILL. DEVKULI, P.S.- SIMRI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. ………PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD PATNA.
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS 18 WITH C.W.J.C NO. 15052 OF 2008 HIRA LAL RAM, SON OF LATE HARDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HUSSAINPUR, P.S.- NAWANAGAR, DISTRICT- BALIA (U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, JAWAHAR HIGH SCHOOL, MAHESHKHUT, KHAGARIA. ………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND PERSONNEL GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15066 OF 2008 SRI RAM PRASAD SON OF LATE HAIDHAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF BALUWAHI P.S. SHAHJAHANPUR, DISTRICT- DEWARIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER BABA BALNATH UCHCH VIDYALAYA, CHITARWAL, SIWAN. ………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15069 OF 2008 KASHI RAM, S/O- LATE HARDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF AT MUGAON, P.O.- & P.S. MUGAON, DISTRICT-BUXOR. …..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 19
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD PATNA.
4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15078 OF 2008 RAMESHWAR PRASAD SON OF SAHDEV PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAAURAVA P.S.- BHIMPURA DISTT. BALIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER SRI RAMLAL SINGH BALIKA HIGH SCHOOL, MUKUNDDERA AATHAR, BUXAR. ………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 15086 OF 2008 RAMANAND PRASAD, SON OF LATE KOMAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAGHARA, P.S.- BALEPUR, DISTRICT- DEORIA, UTTAR PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, SHYAM LAL JAIN HIGH SCHOOL, DARAULI, SIWAN. ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14983 OF 2008 LALLAN RAM SON OF GOPI RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SEVRAI P.S.- GAHMAR, DISTT. GAJPUR (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER JAISWAL HIGH SCHOOL, NAWAN, KAIMUR. ……..PETITIONER 20 VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14982 OF 2008 PHEKOO RAM SON OF LATE SWAROOP RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TISSOURI P.S.- MARDAH, DIST. GAJIPUR (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER K.V.M., HIGH SCHOOL, CHHOTA SASARAM, BHOJPUR. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14934 OF 2008 PREM CHAND RAM SON OF LATE MURAT RAM RESIDENT OF CHHICHHOR P.S.- CHHICHHOR DIST. MAU (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER, C.P.S.S. HIGH SCHOOL, DUMRAO, BUXAR. ….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14980 OF 2008 21 MUKHLAL RAM SON OF LATE BALIRAJ RAM RESIDENT OF KASAUNDAR P.S.- BHIMPURA DISTT. BALIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER HIGH SCHOOL, LAAKHAN DIHRA, BUXAR. ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 14937 OF 2008 BRINDALAL PRASAD SON OF LATE TOTA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PIPRA DIXT P.S.- BHATNI DISTT. DEWARIA (U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEADMASTER, CAURISHANKAR UCHCH VIDYALAYA, UJAIN, SIWAN. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ……..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 10374 OF 2008 1. MADAN MOHAN, SON OF LATE RASIAWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRAJAPATIPUR, P.O. MUKHLISPUR, DISTT. SANT KABIR NAGAR, (BASTI) U.P. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SON OF SRI BALKISHUN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. NANHUL, VIA SIKANDARPUR, DISTRICT BALLIA (U.P.), AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. OM PRAKASH SUMAN SON OF SRI RAM PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. NADWANSARAI, DISTRICT MAU, STATE U.P. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. JITENDRA SON OF SRI RAJ BALI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. BELTHRA BAZAR, DISTRICT BALLIA, U.P. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 22
5. DASHRATH PRASAD, SON OF SRI JHINGU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PACHKHORA KHURD, P.O. PACHKHORA KALA, DISTRICT BALLIA (U.P.), AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ……….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA ……RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 9824 OF 2008 MOHAN RAM S/O LATE PHULPATI RAM, RESIDENT OF BIR BASAWAN NAGAR, P.O. B.V.COLLEGE, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA …..PETITIONER VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
3. THE DY. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
4. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 15 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 15 …..RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 16097 OF 2007 RAJIVE NANDAN MOURYA S/O LATE THAKUR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF C/O SHRI RITESH KUMAR, A69, POLICE COLONY, P.O. ANISHABAD, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA ……..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, PATNA
2. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINHA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, PATNA
3. SHRI S.K.NIZAMI, (MANAGEMENT), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, PATNA JOINT SECRETARY
4. THE JOINT SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, PATNA ……RESPONDENTS. 23 WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 10467 OF 2008 1. RAMADHAR KANAUJIA SON OF SRI BANKEY LAL KANAUJIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANGOLI, POLICE STATION MAU DARWAJA, DISTRICT FARRUKHABAD (U.P.) AND PRESENTLY POSTED AS AN ESTIMATING OFFICER (ASSISTANT ENGINEER), NORTH KOEL DISTRIBUTORY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, KURTHA, JEHANABAD 2. RANJEET PRASAD SON OF SRI PURNAMASHI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHAWALIA, P.O. MATHIA (SHIWPUR), P.S. BARHALGANJ, DISTRICT GORAKHPUR (U.P.) AND PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, BIRPUR, SUPAUL …..PETITIONERS VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DY. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA
5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA
6. THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
8. THE SCHEDULED CASTE COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY, 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI ….RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO.9146 OF 2008 AWADHESH RAM S/O SRI PAKHANDI RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RANJAN PATH, NEW WEST BAILEY ROAD, (NEAR GYAN NIKETAN), P.S. RUPASPUR, (DANAPUR), DISTT. PATNA …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA
3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
4. DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA DEPARTMENT SECRETARY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ……….RESPONDENTS. PERSONNEL OF WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14565 OF 2008 RAM KRIPAL, SON OF LATE RAMADHAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIPRA RAMDHAR, P.S. BARHAJ, DISTRICT DEORIA, UTTAR PRADESH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, RAJ RAJESHWAR HIGH SCHOOL, SURYAPURA, DISTRICT ROHTAS …………PETITIONER VERSUS 24
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ……RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14564 OF 2008 RAM AWADH RAM SON OF LATE RAJPATI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEWALI, POST OFFICE SALAMATPUR, POLICE STATION KASHIMABAD, DISTRICT GAJIPUR (UTTAR PRADESH), AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING AS HEADMASTER IN GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL BHAIROGANJ, ANCHAL BAGAHA-1, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA …RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 14516 OF 2008 RAJAI PRASAD SON OF LATE BANSHI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHAJ, POST OFFICE HORLAPUR, POLICE STATION KUVER ASTHAN, DISTRICT KUSHINAGAR (UTTAR PRADESH), AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING AS HEADMASTER IN GOVT. N.B.S.MILLS HIGH SCHOOL NARAIPUR, ANCHAL BAGAHA 2, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA …RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 9484 OF 2008 KEDAR NATH S/O LATE BABAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF RANJAN PATH (NEAR RATNA HOSTEL), WEST BAILEY ROAD, P.S. RUPASPUR (DANAPUR), DISTT. PATNA. …….PETITIONER. VERSUS 25
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA
3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
4. DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA DEPARTMENT SECRETARY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA PERSONNEL OF …………RESPONDENTS. WITH C.W.J.C.NO. 18694 OF 2008 VIKRAMA PRASAD SON OF LATE AMARDEO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATWAN, P.S. GARWAR, DISTRICT BALIA IN THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AT PRESENT POSTED AS THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BUILDING SUB-DIVISION BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VIKRAMGANJ, DIST.SASARAM, BIHAR ……..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEAPRTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate (In C.W.J.C.Nos. 15153 of 2008, 14861 of 2008, 14865 ……….RESPONDENTS. of 2008, 14760 of 2008, 14759 of 2008, 14758 of 2008, 14627 of 2008, 14632 of 2008, 14633 of 2008, 14634 of 2008, 14658 of 2008, 15052 of 2008, 14565 of 2008) Mr.Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Mrs.Sushila Agrawal, Mr.Gautam Kejriwal, Mrs.Sabina Rubab, Mr.Akash Chaturvedi, Advocates. (In C.W.J.C.Nos.3937 of 2008 and 9824 of 2008) Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, Advocate (In C.W.J.C.Nos.14772 of 2008, 14753 of 2008, 14776 of 2008, 14775 of 2008, 14882 of 2008, 14733 of 2008, 14730 of 2008, 14724 of 2008, 12725 of 2008, 14726 of 2008, 14881of 2008, 14723 of 2008, 14859 of 2008, 14777 of 2008, 14734 of 2008, 14625 of 2008, 14626 of 2008, 14858 of 2008, 14859 of 2008,14992 of 2008, 26 15066 of 2008, 15078 of 2008, 14983 of 2008, 14982 of 2008, 14934 of 2008, 14980 of 2008, 14755 of 2008 and 14937 of 2008 Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr.Baidyanath Thakur, Advocate (In C.W.J.C.Nos.14984 of 2008 to 15003 of 2008 For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr.Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.III Mr.Satyabir Bharti, A.C.to AAG III Mr.P.K.Verma, A.A.G.XI Dr.Mankeshwar Jiwdi, A.C. to AAG XI Mr.Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr.Nirmal Kumar, G.P.IV Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, A.C.to G.P.IV For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON’ BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA -------- C.K.Prasad, ACJ: In all the writ applications, identical questions of law and facts arise and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts lie in a narrow compass. All the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste category and native of States other than the State of Bihar. They were initially recruited against the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste. All of them have been promoted to higher post after
11.6.1996 on the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Caste. To provide for adequate representation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes in post and services under the State, the Governor of the State promulgated successive Ordinances and ultimately the legislature of the State enacted the Bihar 27 Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Classes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1991 (Bihar Act 3 of 1992). Section 4 of Bihar Act3 of 1992, which is relevant for the purpose, as initially enacted reads as follows : for direct services and posts to be recruitment- All 4. Reservation in an appointments establishment which are filled by direct recruitment shall be regulated in the following manner namely :- (1) The available vacancies shall be filled up- (a) from open merit category - 50% (b) from reserved category - 50% (2) The vacancies from different categories of reserved candidates from amongst the 50% reserved category shall, subject to other provisions of this Act, be as follows- (a) Scheduled Castes - 14% (b) Scheduled Tribes - 10% (c) Extremely Backward Class - 12% (d) Backward Class - 8% (e) Economically Backward Women - 3% (f) Economically backward - 3% Total - 50% the State Government may, by Provided notification fix different the official Gazette, percentage for different districts in accordance with the Scheduled population percentage Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes in such districts: Provided further that in case of promotion, reservation shall be made only for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the same population as provided in this section. x x x x Later on, legislature of the State enacted Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Post and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) (amendment) Act 2003 (Bihar Act 15 of 2003). Section 2 of Bihar Act 15 of 2003, inter alias, provides that 28 Section 3 of the said Act shall come into force with effect from 11th of June, 1996. Section 3 of Bihar Act 15 of 2003 provided for insertion of third proviso to sub-section 2 of section 4 in Bihar Act 3 of 1992. Same reads as follows : “3. Amendment of Section-4 of Bihar Act, 3, 1992- The following third proviso shall be added to sub- section (2) of section-4 of the said Act. “Provided further that the candidates residing out of the State of Bihar shall not claim for benefits of reservation under this Act.” Its Hindi version, however, is as follows : 3- fcgkj vf/kfu;e &3] 1992 ds /kkjk 4 dks la’kks/ku 1 & fuEufyf[kr rhljk ijUrqd mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&4 dh mi&/kkjk (2) esa tksM+k tk;sxk %& “” ijUrq vkSj fd fcgkj jkT; ds ckgj ds fuoklh vH;FkhZ bu vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkj{k.k ds ykHk gsrq nkok ugha djsaxsA " It is relevant here to state that the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms by letter dated 11th of June, 1996 informed to the Secretary of Bihar Public Service Commission that the candidates of the reserved classes belonging to other States be not given the benefit of reservation. In the said letter, it has been observed that in matters of direct recruitment in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, benefit of reservation is given only to the reserved category candidates of that State. Accordingly it has been observed that the State Government has taken the decision that benefit of reservation shall be given only to such candidates, who are the permanent residents of State of Bihar i.e. all those who are the native of the State. As the petitioners are not native of the State of Bihar and though they belong to a caste which is Scheduled Caste in the State of 29 their origin and also the State of Bihar but they having been promoted to the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste, in view of insertion of third proviso in Section 4(2) of the Bihar Act 3 of 1992 they have been reverted to the respective posts which they were holding before their promotion. In these writ applications, prayer of the petitioners is to quash those orders by issuance of an appropriate writ. It is worth mentioning here that there is difference between Section 3 of Bihar Act 15 of 2003 in Hindi and English version. There is no dispute that the official language of the State legislature is Hindi and they carry out their proceedings and introduce Bills in Hindi. Section 206 of the Bihar Official Language Act has adopted Hindi in Devnagri script as the language to be used for the official purposes of the State of Bihar. In that view of the matter, in case of difference Hindi version would prevail. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sachidanand Sinha Vs. The Collector, Patna & Ors. [1990 BBCJ 55] in which it has been held as follows : “10. It may be pointed out that, during the hearing of this case, none of the Counsel including the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, in the present case, produced any material to show that the English version of the Act before us is the translated version of the Act in Hindi, in accordance with the requirement of Article 348(3) of the Constitution. While publishing the translated version of section 16(1) under authority of the Governor of this State, as required by Article 348(3) of the Constitution, how such an important part of that sub-section in Hindi version “tcrd fd mfpr fdjk;s ls lacaf/kr fookn l{ke U;k;ky; ds fofu’p; n~okjk ………… r; u dj fn;k tk;“ was overlooked or omitted is difficult to explain. As such 30 it is proper to proceed construe the effect of sub- section (1) of section 16 on the basis of the Hindi version of sub-section (1) of section 16.” It is not in dispute that the State Government had provided for reservation in promotion to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe even before coming into force of Bihar Act 3 of
1992. Further Second proviso to Section (2) thereof provides that in case of promotion, reservation shall be made only for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it is on that basis that the petitioners were promoted to the higher post giving the benefit of reservation. As the petitioners have been reverted to their respective posts in view of insertion of the third proviso in Section 4(2) of Bihar Act 3 of 1992, they have questioned its constitutional validity. It is relevant here to state that the State Government in its Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department by letter dated 11th of June, 1996 had provided that in all categories of services in the State, the benefit of reservation shall be available only to the members of the reserved category who are the permanent residents and native of this State. While taking the aforesaid decision it had taken note of the fact that the State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in direct recruitment had made reservation for the natives of their own respective States. The decision taken by the State Government is as follows : “ 4- jkT; ljdkj us Hkyh&HkkWafr fopkjksijkUr ;g ik;k gS fd jkT; dh ljdkjh lsokvksa dh lHkh Jsf.k;ksa dh lEiw.kZ vkjf{kr fjfDr;kWa fcgkj esa fuokl djus okys vkjf{kr oxZ ds fy, gh miyC/k gksxh pwWafd ljdkjh lsokvksas esa fcgkj fuoklh vkjf{kr oxksZa dk izfrfuf/kRo vi;kZIr gSA jkT; ljdkj us ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd jkT; dh lsokvksa dh lHkh Jsf.k;ksa esa vkj{k.k dh lqfo/kk mUgha mEehnokjksa dks feysxh ftudk LFkk;h fuokl fcgkj jkT; esa gS] vFkkZr tks fcgkj ds ewy oklh gSA " 31 We have heard Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.K.Kanth, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Mr. Bindhyachal Singh and other Advocates on behalf of the petitioners, whereas the respondent-State is represented by the Advocate General. Before I proceed to consider the validity of the provision under challenge, it is apt to consider the scope of judicial review in this regard. It is well settled that an Act of the legislature can be declared ultra vires only on one ground that it violates some provision of the Constitution. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Versus P. Laxmi Devi (Smt) (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720, this issue does not need further deliberation. In the said case, it has been observed as follows : “46. In our opinion, there is one and only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt. This violation can, of course, be in different ways e.g. if a State Legislature makes a law which only Parliament can make under List I to the Seventh Schedule, in which case it will violate Article 246(1) of the Constitution, or the law violates some specific provision of the Constitution (other than the directive principles). But before declaring the statute to be unconstitutional, the court must be absolutely sure that there can be no manner of doubt that it violates a provision of the Constitution. If two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional unconstitutional, the former view must always be preferred. Also, the court must make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if that requires giving a strained construction or other making 32 narrowing down its scope vide Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala SCC para 6 : AIR para 6. Also, it is none of the concern of the court whether the legislation in its opinion is wise or unwise.” It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the third proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act has come into force with effect from 11th of June, 1996 by virtue of Section 3 of Bihar Act 15 of 2003 and hence it is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section 3 of Bihar Act 15 of 2003 inserting third proviso in Bihar Act 3 of 1992 has also been sought to be declared ultra vires on the ground that it has been made operative with effect from 11.6.1996 without spelling out any reason or relevance of the said date. It has also been pointed out that the accelerated seniority and promotion guaranteed under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India have been divested and therefore the proviso under challenge is ultra vires and the act of reversion on that basis is also illegal. It has been emphasized that right accrued cannot be divested by retrospective application of law. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and another v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others [AIR 1984 Supreme Court 161] and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 52 of the said judgment, which reads as follows : legislation is pure and simple,self- “The deceptive, if we may use such an expression with reference to a legislature-made law. The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution, and have to conform to the dos the Constitution, neither and don‟ts of prospective nor retrospective laws can be made 33 rights, therefore, so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The the requirements of law must satisfy into account taking Constitution accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by twenty years. We are concerned with rights and not today‟s legislate yesterday‟s. A Legislature cannot today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of the twenty years. That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history.” Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Kapur and others v. State of Haryana and others [AIR 1987 Supreme Court 415] and our pointed attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which reads as follows : “The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well recognized principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Art. 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled.” Another decision on which reliance is placed is the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and others Versus C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others [(1997)6 SCC 623], in which it has been held as follows : 34 “In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “accrued rights” have been impugned used while striking down provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, rights discriminatory and violative of guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” Yet another decision on which reliance is placed is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsi Das and others Versus Govt. of A.P. and others [(2003)1 SCC 364, in which it has been held as follows : “The provisions of Sections 2 and 3(a) insofar as they purport to take away the rights from 10-2- 1967 and obligate those who had them to repay or restore them back to the State are hereby struck down as arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory and as such are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No exception could be taken, in our view, to the prospective exercise of powers thereunder without infringing the rights already acquired by the appellants and the category of the persons similarly situated whether approached the courts or not seeking relief individually. The provisions contained in Section 2 have to be read down so as to make it only prospective, to save the same from the unconstitutionality arising out of its retrospective application.” Mr. Advocate General, however, appearing on behalf of the State submits that the third proviso of Section 4(2) of Bihar Act 3 of 1992 as inserted by Section 3 of Bihar Act 15 of 2003 under challenge 35 covers the case of the petitioners and they being native of the place other than the State of Bihar are not fit to be considered for promotion on the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste after coming into force of the proviso under challenge. According to him, petitioners have been promoted on vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste after coming into force of the proviso under challenge and hence their promotions were illegal and when came to the notice of the State Government they have been rightly reverted to the post they held earlier. According to him, the proviso under challenge is neither arbitrary nor irrational as it tends to benefit the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who are native of the State of Bihar. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel and the authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable. It is well settled that when the legislature has the power to legislate, it can legislate retrospectively. There is no prohibition for the Legislature to take away or impair vested right under existing laws but any law either prospective or retrospective which contravenes fundamental right can not be made. Further the Legislature may have the power to make law to operate with retrospective effect but while doing so it must be shown to bear reasonable nexus. Here in the present case, the proviso under challenge came into force with effect from 11th of June, 1996. It cannot be said that the legislature has chosen this date without any purpose. It is relevant here to state that the State Government in the 36 Personnel and Administrative Department by letter dated 11th of June, 1996 had provided for giving the benefit of reservation to such members of the reserved category who are the native (ewy oklh) of this State. As the aforesaid decision of the State Government was communicated by letter dated 11.6.1996, the legislature has chosen to make it effective from the said date. It is worth mentioning here that the letter in question had taken note of the decisions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh of not providing the reservation in direct recruitment, but the decision taken by the State Government cannot be confined in the matter of direct recruitment only. The decision of the State Government in no uncertain terms provides for extending the benefit of reservation in all categories of services to permanent residents and native of this State. From the aforesaid decision of the State Government, it is evident that the benefit of reservation is to be provided to the members of the reserved category who are the native of the State of Bihar in all categories of State service. In view of nine Judges Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and others Versus Union of India and others [1992 Supp(3) SCC 217], decision to provide reservation can be provided by an executive decision. In the said case it has been held as follows : “170. The next submission that the provision for reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) can be made only by a legislation and not by an executive order is unsustainable. This contention as a matter of fact has already been answered in (1) Balaji and (2) Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Mohan Lal Mehrotra. 171. In passing, it may be stated that this Court 37 while reversing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in favour of the appellant (State) in State of Punjab v. Hira Lal upheld the reservation which was made not by a legislation but by an executive order. See also Mangal Singh v. Punjab State. 172. Agreeing with the reasonings of Balaji I hold that the provision for reservation in the “services under the State” under Article 16(4) can be made by an executive order. 243(5). „Any provision‟ under Article 16(4) is not necessarily to be made by the Parliament or Legislature. Such a provision could also be made by an Executive order.” Here the State Government by an executive decision had provided that the benefit of reservation in all categories of the State services to the native of this State and hence it cannot be said that the proviso under challenge was made effective from a date which is irrational or has no nexus. In my opinion, in terms of the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Department dated 11th of June, 1996 petitioners were not eligible to be considered for promotion against the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste. In such a situation, it can not be said that any right accrued to the petitioners for being promoted to the higher post on the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that the proviso under challenge had divested the petitioners with any of the right accrued to him. It has next been contended that on the date of appointment, petitioners who belonged to the Scheduled Caste of the State, other than the State of Bihar, were treated in similar fashion as that of the Scheduled Caste of this State and therefore later on they cannot be treated unequally. It is emphasized that petitioners once having been 38 treated equally cannot be treated unequal and if done, it shall affect the petitioners‟ right guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any substance in this submission. The question of discrimination, in my opinion, shall arise only when a person belonging to same class is treated differently. The members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to this State and those belonging to other States constitute different class. It is not the case of the petitioners that Scheduled Caste of other States have been granted benefit and they alone have been discriminated with the Scheduled Caste of this State. In my opinion, the Scheduled Caste of this State and Scheduled Caste of other States constitute different and distinct class and the decision to give benefit to the Scheduled Caste of this State only cannot be said to be discriminatory. It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the proviso under challenge is ultra vires the constitutional structure by making discrimination on the basis of the place of the residents. It has been pointed out that the petitioners, members of the Scheduled Caste, regardless of their place of birth on migration do not seize to be the members thereof or alter their status of disadvantaged class. According to them, the proviso under challenge makes discrimination on the basis of the place of birth which is in teeth of the guarantee enshrined under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. The very assumption that they are being discriminated on the 39 ground of place of birth is absolutely misconceived. The benefit of reservation is confined to the members of the Scheduled Caste, who are the native of this place and as a result thereof it is not made available to such members of the Scheduled Caste who are native of other States. Distinction exists between the place of birth and the residence. Although discrimination is not permissible on the ground of place of birth but certainly nothing prohibits discrimination on the ground of residence. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and others Versus Union of India and others [(1984) 3 SCC 654], in which it has been held as follows : invalidating “6. But, it is clear that so far as admissions to an educational institution such as a medical college are concerned, Article 16(2) has no application. If, therefore, there is any residence requirement for admission to a medical college in a State, it cannot be condemned as unconstitutional on ground of violation of Article 16(2). Nor can Article 16(2) be invoked residence requirement because that article prohibits discrimination on ground of place of birth and not on ground of residence and as pointed out by this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, resident and place of birth are “two distinct conceptions with different connotations both in law and in fact”. The only provision of the Constitution resident touchstone of which such requirement can be required to be tested is Article 14 and that is precisely the challenge which falls to be considered by us in these writ petitions.” (Underlining ours) I hasten to add that discrimination on the ground of residence, if founded on unreasonable classification will also be bad but in a case in which the legislature makes discrimination on the ground of 40 residence, it shall not be invalid on that ground. It is relevant here to state that Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the ground of place of birth but does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of place of residents. Not only this, Article 15(4) enables the State for making special provision for the advancement of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Though Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination on the ground of residence also but Clause (4A) thereof permits making provision for reservation in matters of promotion and seniority in favour of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, which in the opinion of the State are not adequally represented in the services under the State. The preamble of the Act enumerates the purpose of the Act and that is to provide for adequate representation of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes in post and services under the State. A legislation providing for giving benefit to the members of the Scheduled Castes, who are native of this State is thus permissible under Article 16 and thus can not be said to be ultra vires Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has next been contended that the proviso in question prohibits inter State migration and for which the State Legislature is not competent to make law. It has been pointed out that the legislation in question is covered under Entry No.81 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and as such it is beyond the competence of the State Legislature. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that any law made beyond the 41 legislative competence is ultra vires but the question in the present case is as to whether the legislation in question has been made under the entry aforesaid. In my opinion, the legislation in question is not covered under the entry inter State migration. The legislation or for that matter the proviso under challenge does not prohibit inter State migration. It confines the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the native of the State of Bihar. There is no inhibition in migration of Scheduled Caste but when he migrates, he does not and can not carry any special rights or privileges attributed or granted to him in original State. In respect of State public services, the legislature of the State has the power to make law in this regard under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that the State Legislature has no power to make law in this regard. As such, it can not be said that the enactment or the proviso under challenge is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It has also been contended that depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes of other States the benefit of reservation in promotion the State Government ought to have consulted the National Commission for the Scheduled Caste as required under Article 338(9) of the Constitution of India. Even if I assume in favour of the petitioners that no consultation had taken place, that itself shall not render the proviso under challenge to be ultra vires. The proviso under challenge has not deprived the members of the Scheduled Casts the benefits of 42 reservation in matter of promotion but has confined that to the members of the Scheduled Castes of this State. In such a situation, it can not be said that the proviso under challenge had affected the Scheduled Castes in general and therefore consultation with the Commission is necessary. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioners that before reverting to the post which they held prior to the promotion, no enquiry was held and as such the reversion is in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 16 and also in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, Article 311 of the Constitution of India covers reversion on any ground. I have found that the order of reversion does not suffer from the vice of discrimination guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have not been reverted as a major of punishment but on the ground that their promotion on the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes is illegal. In such circumstance, it can not be said that an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is necessary. Thus, the reversion of the petitioners can not be said to be either in violation of Section 16 or 311 of the Constitution of India. It has lastly been contended that the castes to which the petitioners belong are Scheduled Caste in the States to which they belong and this State also and in that view of the matter they ought not to have been reverted. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakar 43 Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1036] and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which reads as follows : “7. In view of fact that the appellant‟s case was not referred to the appropriate Committee, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. It will be open to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the eligibility of the appellant. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith as Assistant engineer and shall continue to hold the said post till the matter is decided by the Committee. The appeal is allowed on the aforementioned terms. There shall be no order as to costs.” As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (Supra), the same has no bearing in the facts of the present case. In the said case, a particular Tribe was a Scheduled Caste in both the State of Maharashtra and State of Madhya Pradesh and the Chhindwara region to which the employee belonged had gone into the State of Maharashtra and in that context the Supreme Court while giving opportunity to the employer to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee directed for reinstatement of the employee. This is not the situation here. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that the Advocate General has taken a stand that, law or no law restricting the benefit of reservation to the members of Scheduled Caste of this State only, under the constitutional scheme itself a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, native of other State than the State in which benefit of reservation is sought shall not be entitled for benefit of reservation in the matter of employment, which includes promotion. According to him, had 44 there been no decision of the State Government dated 11.6.1996 or Bihar Act 3 of 1992, petitioners would not have been entitled for benefit of reservation in promotion. According to him, against the vacancies reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste itself, petitioners‟ appointments itself were illegal. In view of the fact that the State Government had taken the decision and the State Legislature has made the law, I am not inclined to go into this question in the present writ applications. In the result, I do not find any merit in all these writ applications and they are dismissed but without any order as to costs. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) Dharnidhar Jha, J : I agree. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Patna High Court, Dated, 4th March, 2009. AFR/ Narendra/