IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14598 of 2010 HARI NARAYAN . Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- 02. 17.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was holding the post of Examiner of Questioned Documents in the Home (Police), Department of the unified State of Bihar. On reorganization of the State of Bihar he was allocated the State of Jharkhand. Aggrieved, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 9427 of 2009. The application was disposed off on 7.8.2009 with direction to join the State of Jharkhand first and then pursue his representation before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel (Training), Government of India, New Delhi. The representation has now been rejected by the order dated 7.7.2010 which is presently questioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he alone was substantially holding the post of Examiner of Questioned Documents in the State of Bihar. He had opted to continue in the reorganized State of Bihar. Sri Raj Ballabh Tiwari held the post of Director. In any event, he had never opted for the State 2 of Bihar after reorganisation. Strong reliance is placed on the letter of Home (Police), Department of Government of Bihar dated 30.7.2003 to urge that the petitioner was the lone holder of the post. The communication dated 21.12.2005 is relied upon to buttress the claim. It is urged that Sri Tiwari stood promoted as Director substantively with effect from 1.8.1996. Placing reliance on the guidelines for allocation of cadres, at paragraph 5-8-Ga, it was submitted that where there was only one post, the allocation of cadre has to be made in accordance with the State to which the post was allocated.The State of Bihar therefore rightly refused to relieve the petitioner originally, but has subsequently wrongly relieved the petitioner for joining in the State of Jharkhand. No other illegality in cadre allocation has been argued. Learned counsel for the State Advisory Committee and the State of Bihar submitted that on the relevant date that is 15.11.2000, there were two Examiners of Questioned Documents. Sri Tiwari was senior to the petitioner. He was additionally holding the charge of Director. The letter dated 21.12.2005 was erroneous. The State Government had already sent a clarification earlier in context of which the letter dated 3 20.11.2009 was issued by the Union of India and after consideration of all aspects the impugned order dated 7.7.2010 has been issued. If Sri Tiwari, was senior to the petitioner holding a higher post in additional charge, in addition to his own substantive rank of Examiner of Questioned Documents, this Court finds no error in the allocation of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand. The next submission that Sri Tiwari had not opted for the State of Bihar, while the petitioner had done so does not impress the Court. The guidelines for cadre allocation may have provided for the exercise of option was a matter to be considered by the authorities. Mere exercise of option does not vest a legal right to demand acceptance of the same. The final discretion is that of the employer. The petitioner does not claim that he has been prejudiced in any manner in his service prospects by allocation to the State of Jharkhand. That the exercise was historic, individual heart burning was bound to be there are matters expressly noticed by the Supreme Court in (2007) 7 SCC 250 (Indradeo Paswar Versus Union of India & Others) holding at paragraph- 8 and 12 as follows:- “8. We may notice straightway that no 4 case of mala fides or irrationality has been made out in the matter of allocation of the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar. The case is pitched only on the ground of non-acceptance of the option of the appellant and an attack on the grounds for its rejection.” “12. We see no reason not to accept the principle adopted in Prakash Chandra Sinha (supra) by the High Court that the allocation should not be interfered with on individual grievances relating to non acceptance of options exercised, unless clear illegality or Wednesbury unreasonableness is established. The State was reorganized with effect from 20.11.2000. We are in the year 2007. It had taken almost five years for the Union of India to publish the final list of allocation regarding this Department. In the absence of any clear ground for interference found in the case, merely on the ground that the appellant had opted for going to the State of Jharkhand but had been allocated to the State of Bihar, it does not appear to be necessary or proper to interfere with the order of allocation.” There is no merit in this application, it is accordingly dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)