IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19995 of 2010 KRISHNADEO PRASAD, S/O LATE CHANDRA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-LOHRAJPUR, P.O.-KATAUNA, P.S.- KATRISARAI, DISTRICT-NALANDA AT PRESENT ADDRESS C/O CHANDRASHEKHAR PRASAD, 80/B1, AZAD PATH, P.S.-SARISTABAD, DISTRICT-PATNA. .........PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS DEPUTY HOME SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE, BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE BIHAR OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 5. CHAIRPERSON, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SICHAI BHAVAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA-23. 6. SPECIAL SECRETARY HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ........RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Shivaji Pandey, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Rajiva Ranjan, Adv. For the State : AAG-15. For the Union of India : Mr.Sahvind Kr. Sharma (CGC) ----------- 5 19.05.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by a letter of the Home (Police) Department dated 23.11.2010 the allocation of cadre of the petitioner has been shown as Jharkhand. He submits that due to some misconception the petitioner has been treated as of B.C. category and under that category his case has been considered for transfer. He submits that when the option was asked for, the petitioner has submitted his option for 2 Bihar. Although his initial appointment was under general category and all through in service he was treated as general category, but by mistake he had mentioned his caste on the option form and that has been taken into account by the respondents erroneously to treat him as of B.C. category and his services have been allocated to the Jharkhand. He submits that after the said letter of the Department was issued on 23.11.2010, petitioner has already represented before the D.I.G. Police, Bihar, vide Annexure-2, disclosing reasons for reconsideration of his case for retaining his services in the Bihar in which he has stated that he has wrongly been treated as of B.C. category. Since the claim of the petitioner is that by mistake he is being treated as of B.C. category and on account of the same, he is being transferred to Jharkhand, it will be appropriate for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-2, and decide as to whether the case of the petitioner requires reconsideration, or not. If the authorities 3 of the Department come to the conclusion that on account of facts stated in the representation of the petitioner, his case requires any re-consideration, they will forward their recommendation to the State Advisory Committee for appropriate decision. The authorities of the Department shall consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)