IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12030 of 2008 NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3. 17.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State of Bihar and for the State Advisory Committee. No counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State of Bihar or the State Advisory Committee. This Court does not consider it prudent to keep the matter pending any further for that purpose. The petitioner, who is a member of the Joint Assistant Cadre in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, is aggrieved by the final allocation of his services to the State of Jharkhand consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar. The writ application only urges the ground that the petitioner had exercised his option for the State of Bihar. The law stands well settled that mere exercise of option creates no right to found a cause of action upon the same and demand acceptance thereof. In response to the query of the Court as to what parameters for allocation of cadres had been violated by the State Advisory Committee or the State of Bihar to warrant interference, learned counsel submitted that he shall take instructions and file a supplementary affidavit. Reliance was next placed on a bald statement in paragraph 31 of the writ application that the cadre allocation had - 2 - not been done in accordance with the proportion of 2 : 1. In response to the query of the Court with regard to details of violation of the proportion the submission was that the petitioner was required to answer the same only after the Respondents file a counter affidavit, which would help the petitioner to build up his case to demonstrate violation. A petitioner, who comes to the Court, has to make out his case on his own. It is only after he prima facie satisfies the Court that the question of calling upon the Respondents to file a counter affidavit arises. This Court is not persuaded to grant adjournment only after the queries are made by the Court to enable the petitioner to start building up his case. The exercise for allocation of cadres was mammoth and having commenced in 2000 has been finally completed in the year 2008. It has been held by the Apex Court in (2007) 7 SCC 250 ( Indra Deo Paswan v. The Union of India & ors. ) that unless there be apparent illegality, arbitrariness or wednesbury unreasonableness, the Court should not interfere. To this Court, individual heart burn by itself shall not be sufficient to interfere with what otherwise is an exercise of historic proportions as otherwise the entire exercise may be jeopardized. The writ application is rejected. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)