IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 872 of 2009 Jugal Kishore Bhatt ……Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. Present:- Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P./respondent nos. 3, 5 and 8. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J., (Oral) Petitioner, a resident of the area which has now become part of the State of Uttarakhand, was employed as a Block Organiser by the State of Uttar Pradesh. After the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated to create the State of Uttarakhand by carving a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh, petitioner opted for being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner’s request for being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand has been refused on the ground that in view of non-availability of posts, petitioner could not be accommodated on the basis of his seniority. The fact remains that there were 13 posts available in the State of Uttarakhand and for those 13 posts, 20 had opted. According to the policy of the Central Government, in such situation, pro rata allocation has to be made based on year of entry in the service. In order to satisfy ourselves that the said policy of the Central Government was followed in toto in this case, we asked both the State Governments to bring on record the necessary informations as well as the subject options. Except one option, nothing has been brought on 2 record. In the counter affidavit, the State Government has shown the date of entry of those 13 employees. From there, it appears that in the matter of allocating those 13 employees, their seniority was taken into account and not proportional representation on the basis of date of entry, as is the policy of the Central Government. It appears that while one person entered in 1991, one person also entered in 1992 but eight persons entered in 1994, two in 1995 and one in 1997. When there was an optee, as that of petitioner, who entered on 18th August, 2000, all those who entered in 1994, according to the policy of the Central Government, could not be allocated paving way for allocation in favour of the petitioner. In any event, this exercise has not been done. The matter is, accordingly, once again remitted back to the Advisory Committee who will apply the proportionate allotment policy of the Central Government and thereupon reconsider the matter in accordance with such policy of the Central Government. Till then, the petitioner shall remain posted at same place, where he is posted. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 9.5.2011 Rathour