IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7625 of 2006 Rajesh Kumar, son of Bhola Nath Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Raja Bazar West Gopalpur, Police Station – Motihari, District – East Champaran - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through Secretary, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 2 Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3 Chairman, State Advisory Committee, Bihar, Patna 4 Union of India, Department of Personnel and Administrative through its under Secretary, New Delhi 5 The State of Jharkhand under Secretary, Department of Personal and Administrative, Ranchi - Respondents ----------- 7 16.05.2011 The petitioner was appointed by the Director, Secondary Education upon being selected and recommended by the Vidyalaya Seva Board as Lab Assistant in the year, 1993. His grievance is that, upon bifurcation of the State by the Bihar Reorganization Act 2000, by the impugned order passed in the year 2006, he has been allocated Jharkhand Cadre. He was earlier posted at Motihari. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that as per the administrative decision taken for the purposes of bifurcation of cadres, it was decided that any District Level, Divisional Level or Regional Level Cadre, the bifurcation would take place leaving the employees in their own District, Division or Region. Hence, there would be no movement at all. The adjustment would only be made in respect of State Cadre. He submits that his appointment being made by the Regional Deputy Director, he was in Regional Cadre and, as such, would not have been directed to be allocated Jharkhand Cadre. On behalf of State, it is pointed out that though the posting has been done by the Regional Deputy Director, the recruitment was done by the Director, Secondary Education on the recommendation of the 2 Vidyalaya Seva Board. With reference to Clause-5.13 of the Memorandum for Bifurcation of Cadres, as appended by the petitioner himself, it is apparent that the Memorandum has defined State Cadre and what is not State Cadre. It clearly stipulates that where appointments are made by Regional Deputy Director and Officers thereunder that would be Regional Cadre, Divisional Cadre or District Cadre. Others would automatically be State Cadre. With reference to Annexure-2, it is pointed out that petitioner was appointed by the Director, Secondary Education and that would make him State Cadre. It is further pointed out that the petitioner’s assertion that several people were, accordingly, adjusted and/or left is not correct. All those people are persons who have opted for mutual transfers which were allowed. Petitioner, from the records, it appears that he had not given his option but later objected to the proposal opting to stay in Bihar. He could not get a person for his mutual transfer so that he could stay at Bihar. Thus, there was nothing wrong in allocating him Jharkhand Cadre. Having considered the matter, in my view, the stand of the State is correct. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner belongs to a District Cadre or a Divisional Cadre or a Regional Cadre. In fact, the counter affidavit clearly states that no formal Rules making cadre has ever been framed. Counter affidavit further states that it was always taken to be a State Level Cadre. The appointment has been made by the Director, Secondary Education whose jurisdiction is of State Level and not by the Regional Deputy Director. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the 3 petitioner belongs to the District Cadre, Divisional Cadre or the Regional Cadre and, thus, he would fall for consideration by the Government for allocation of cadre and he being allocated to Jharkhand, there is no illegality therein. This writ petition merits no consideration. It is dismissed accordingly. The cadre allocation order, in so far as petitioner is concerned which had been stayed earlier by this Court, is vacated. Petitioner would, accordingly, now be required to report to the Cadre Controlling Authority as allotted for his further posting. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)