IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 200 of 2010 (S/B) P raveen Kumar and others ...…………. Petitioners Versus Union of India & others ...…………. Respondents Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate with Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India, for respondent Nos. 1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners. Petitioners were directly recruited by the State of Uttarakhand after the said State was created upon reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is a decision of the Central Government, whereby the Central Government has permitted final allocation of 17 people, who were originally employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and 2 thereafter, became provisional employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, in view of the Uttar Pradesh Re- organization Act, to the State of Uttarakhand. While making such allocation, the Central Government was aware that in the vacancies available, all those 17 people cannot be accommodated, and accordingly provided that they will be accommodated in the future vacancies. Petitioners contended that since those 17 people have been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, petitioners will have 17 more contenders for future promotion, and accordingly, they have locus standi to challenge the said allocation made by the Central Government. We reject the said contention of the petitioners. Much before the petitioners were born in the cadre by their appointment, all those 17 people were in the cadre. At the time they joined the cadre there was one cadre for one State, namely that of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In asmuchas the State of Uttar Pradesh was re-organized, the status of those 17 people, though they were, immediately before the reorganization, were permanent employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, stood altered to provisional employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh. They were to be allocated either to the State of Uttar Pradesh or to the State of Uttarakhand. Their status as provisional employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, will no doubt come to an end on the date they would be allocated to either of the States, but the interregnum, during which by a fiction of law their status was altered to that of provisional employees of 3 State of Uttar Pradesh, can not be treated as suspended animation. During that period they would continue to remain and be considered as employees of either of the States to which they have been allocated and infact they shall be treated as employees of that State from the date of their appointment. In the circumstances, there is no question of the petitioners contending that by reason of those 17 people, who are otherwise in law deemed to be always with the State of Uttarakhand, coming to the State of Uttarakhand on being allocated, the competition of the petitioners will be enlarged by 17 more people, giving the petitioners locus standi to challenge the said allocation. A look at the order of the Central Government would also make it amply clear in what background the Central Government had to take the decision impugned. The fact remains, that each of those 17 people belong to Scheduled Tribe community. They were and are members of such Scheduled Tribe community who resided within the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh, which became the State of Uttarakhand. Because they were residents of that territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the community to which they belong, was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe community entitled to protection. Taking note of the fact that in the event, they are not permitted to continue to enjoy their status, as was recognized before the Re-organization Act, they and their family would be outside such protection for no fault on their part, but for the 4 reorganization of the State, a decision has been taken to allocate them to the State of Uttarakhand. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. We express that we desired to impose exemplary cost in the matter, but restrained ourselves from doing so. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.09.2011 Negi