IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8006 of 2005 SMT.REENA JHA W/O VIJAY KANT JHA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT POLICE FORCE, POLICE LINE, SAMASTIPUR,R/O VILLAGE-DULARPUR, PS. TOGHRA, DISTT- BEGUSARAI-----------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL) BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ( RAJYA PRAMARSDATRI SAMITY) PERSONNEL CELL, SANCHAI AWAS, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 27.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is the second visit of the petitioner before this High Court. Earlier writ application was disposed of on 12.10.2004 giving direction to the Chairman, State Advisory Committee, respondent no.5 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. That order is annexure-5 to the writ application. Based on the said direction of the Court the representation dated 22.6.2002 contained in annexure-1 has now come to be disposed of by a speaking order contained in annexure-8 which has been brought on record by way of I. A. No.1969 of 2006. I.A. is allowed. The Chairman of the State Advisory Committee has recorded in his order that the claim of the petitioner for allocation of Bihar cadre is not covered by Clause 5.10(iii) which has been reproduced in the impugned order itself and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: Þ¼iii½ vxj nksuksa ifr&iRuh esa ls dksbZ ,d Spouse oSls in ij dk;Zjr gS tks iwjs vfoHkkftr fcgkj jkT; esa LFkkukUrj.kh; gS rFkk nwljk Spouse jkT; ljdkj ds {ks=h; in ij inLFkkfir gS vFkok dsUnz@jkT; ljdkj }kjk yxHkx iw.kZr% foRr iksf"kr laLFkk ;Fkk cksMZ] fuxe] izkf/kdkj] fo'ofo|ky; ds oSls {ks=h;@jkT; Lrjh; in ij dk;Zjr gSa] tks xSj LFkkukUrj.kh; gSa] ds laca/k esa igys Spouse dks nwljs Spouse ds - 2 - inLFkkiu okys jkT; esa vkoafVr fd;k tk ldsxkA Þ Submission of learned counsel is that the reason for rejection is in teeth of the said provision which has been quoted above because the husband of the petitioner was working in the Public Undertaking Sector, namely, IOC and posted in Barauni which is according to him is non-transferable post. Learned counsel for the State submits that reading of the representation of the petitioner contained in annexure-1 would show that there is no pleading of the kind that post on which the petitioner’s husband is working is non-transferable post either in the State of Bihar or Jharkhand and what is to be submitted at the bar before the Court cannot be made a ground for interfering with the order passed in annexure-8. The stand of the State seems to be correct because the High Court in its order contained in annexure-5 had given a direction upon the Chairman of the State Advisory Committee to consider the representation of the petitioner as contained in annexure-1 and pass an appropriate order. Based on the factual position and the circular the order against allocation of the cadre contained in annexure-8 has come to be passed. The High Court cannot declare an order to be bad in law merely because new facts or dimension or interpretation is sought to be given before this Court and before the Committee. No case for interference is made out. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)