Supreme Court settles reservation benefits for employees post-state reorganization: Akhilesh Prasad vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission (26 April 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 419

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. (Majority Opinion by Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Concurring Opinion by S. Ravindra Bhat, J.)

Can an employee of a state, which has been bifurcated, claim reservation benefits in the newly formed state for promotions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the reorganization of Bihar and the formation of Jharkhand. The core issue was whether an employee, who was initially appointed under a reserved category in the undivided state of Bihar, could claim the same reservation benefits for a departmental promotion in the newly formed state of Jharkhand.

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with a concurring opinion by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, clarified the rights of employees in such situations. The court emphasized the protection of service conditions and reservation benefits for employees affected by state reorganization.

Case Background

The appellant, Akhilesh Prasad, was appointed as a Cooperative Development Officer in the then undivided State of Bihar in 1995. He was selected under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, with a caste certificate issued on 03.06.1995. His service record also reflected that he belonged to the ST (Gond) category.

In 2000, the State of Bihar was bifurcated, leading to the creation of the State of Jharkhand. The appellant’s service was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. In 2010, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (the Commission) issued an advertisement for filling the posts of Deputy Collectors through a limited departmental examination. The advertisement stated that reservation benefits would be extended only to those who submitted caste certificates from the Sub-Divisional Officer posted in the State of Jharkhand.

The appellant appeared for the examination but was declared unsuccessful despite scoring higher than the cut-off for the ST category. The reason for his non-selection was that he did not submit a caste certificate issued by the authorities in Jharkhand.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant challenged his non-selection by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. The Single Judge allowed the petition, stating that the limited departmental examination was not a fresh appointment but a continuation of service. The Single Judge held that the appellant, having been allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as an ST candidate, was entitled to the reservation benefits.

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the State of Jharkhand appealed the Single Judge’s decision before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order, holding that the limited departmental examination was a fresh appointment and that the appellant had failed to comply with the condition of submitting a caste certificate from the State of Jharkhand.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Sections 73 and 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, titled “Other provisions relating to services,” states:

“(1) Nothing in section 72 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State: Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand under section 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person — (a) if he is deemed to have been allocated to any State under section 72, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of that State; (b) if he is deemed to have been allocated to the Union in connection with the administration of the Jharkhand shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the Union, for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service. (3) The provisions of section 72, shall not apply in relation to members of any All -India Service.”

Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, titled “Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post,” states:

“Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority in, that successor State: Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office.”

These sections ensure that the service conditions of employees of the undivided State of Bihar are protected after the bifurcation, and that they continue to hold their posts in the successor states.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The appellant argued that the ST known as Gond in the undivided State of Bihar is recognized as an ST in both the newly formed states of Bihar and Jharkhand.
• ✓ He contended that his services were allocated to the State of Jharkhand, and therefore, he is entitled to the protection under Sections 72 and 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.
• ✓ The appellant submitted that his status as an ST candidate entitles him to the benefit of reservation in promotion, even in the State of Jharkhand.
• ✓ He argued that the limited departmental examination is essentially an accelerated promotion, not a fresh appointment.
• ✓ The appellant emphasized that the limited departmental examination is only open to existing employees, not to candidates from the open market.
• ✓ The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2021 (9) SCALE 576.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The respondents argued that condition No.13 of the advertisement required the caste certificate to be issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jharkhand.
• ✓ They contended that the appellant failed to comply with this condition and therefore, could not be considered an ST candidate in Jharkhand.
• ✓ The respondents submitted that the limited departmental examination was a fresh appointment, not a promotion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Division Bench of the High Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the appointment through limited competitive examination is a fresh appointment or by way of promotion?
2. Whether the provision of Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 will be applicable in the process of selection to be made through limited competitive examination after final order passed by the Central Government under Section 72(2) of the Act?
3. Whether condition of advertisement can be allowed to be assailed by the candidates who have participated in the process of selection but declared unsuccessful?
4. Whether in the matter of fresh appointment, reservation can be said to be a condition of service for making applicable the provision of Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the rights of employees affected by state reorganization. The court emphasized that the bifurcation of states should not adversely affect the service conditions and reservation benefits of employees who were already in service. The court also focused on the fact that the limited departmental examination was an avenue for promotion for existing employees and not a fresh appointment from the open market.

The court rejected the argument that the limited departmental examination was a fresh appointment, emphasizing that it was a mode of promotion for existing employees. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting the service conditions of employees affected by state reorganization, as mandated by Sections 73 and 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.

The court’s reasoning was also influenced by the precedent set in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, which clarified the rights of employees after state bifurcation.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Employees of a state that has been bifurcated are entitled to the same reservation benefits in the newly formed state for promotions through limited departmental examinations.
• ✓ Limited departmental examinations are considered a form of accelerated promotion for existing employees, not a fresh appointment.
• ✓ Sections 73 and 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, protect the service conditions and reservation benefits of employees affected by state reorganization.
• ✓ The judgment clarifies that employees cannot be disadvantaged due to state reorganization.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Single Judge, directing the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to consider the appellant for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector as a reserved category (Scheduled Tribe) candidate.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees of a state that has been bifurcated are entitled to the same reservation benefits in the newly formed state for promotions through limited departmental examinations. This judgment clarifies and reinforces the principles laid down in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, ensuring that state reorganization does not disadvantage employees.

This case also clarifies that limited departmental examinations are a form of promotion and not a fresh appointment, which is a crucial distinction for employees seeking career advancement within their respective departments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Akhilesh Prasad vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission reinforces the protection of service conditions and reservation benefits for employees affected by state reorganization. The court held that limited departmental examinations are a form of promotion and that employees are entitled to the same reservation benefits in the newly formed state as they were in the undivided state. This decision ensures that employees are not disadvantaged due to the bifurcation of states and clarifies the application of Sections 73 and 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.