IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9614 of 2011 Rohit Tiwary, son of late Nand Kishore Tiwary, resident of village – Matukpur, Police Station – Barhara, District - Bhojpur Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Advocate General, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Special), Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Special), Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pension (Personnel and Training) Department, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi. 8. The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 3rd floor, Khan Market, New Delhi. 9. The State Advisory Committee, through its Chairman, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. 10. The Chairman, State Advisory Committee, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. 11. The Secretary, State Advisory Committee, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. 12. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand. 13. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension (Personnel and Training) Department, Government of India, New Delhi. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Navendu Kumar. For the Union of India : M/S. Sahvind Kumar Sharma and Shiv Kumar. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Sandip Singh, AC to GP 9. For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. N N Ojha. --- 03. 09.08.2011 It is more than 10 years now since the State of Jharkhand was created under the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. The allocation of cadre has dragged on for many years. The claims and litigations arising from such allocations have been coming to this Court still, on the issue. Government of India had drawn guidelines fixing time frame within which the 2 exercise was to be carried out. Despite the above some things do not seem to die. Petitioner is one of the person who does not seem to be happy with allocation of Jharkhand cadre based on the decision taken by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India vide its order dated 4.3.2011. Petitioner had given a detailed representation as to why he ought not to be sent to Jharkhand and he should continue in the State of Bihar because his appointment was on compassionate ground. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which is supposed to be the State Advisory Committee, which has role in such matters. Their stand is that the notification allotting Jharkhand cadre to the petitioner has come to be decided on the basis of the parameters not only laid down in the Bihar Re-organization Act but also on the basis of various circulars which came to be issued from time to time including the ratio in which such allocation had to be made. Ratio talked about is 2:1. Based on the ratio the vacancy position of the post has been worked out. Based on the seniority and options, the exercise was carried out and State Advisory Committee came to an opinion that the opening available against the position where the petitioner stood belonged to Jharkhand cadre. Such a recommendation formed the foundation of issuance of notification. It is not a case where exercise and deliberation had 3 not been made on the fixed parameters. It is not even a case where there is some element of arbitrariness based on which pick and choose has been exercised. A detailed deliberation which was made by the State Advisory Committee has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which indicates that way back in the year 2001 itself the State Advisory Committee decided that in cases of women employees who were appointed on compassionate grounds, preference will be given to their options, rest of the case will be considered on the basis of parameters of such allocation. In other words, no exception was made for any other category of employees who were appointed under compassionate head. If after due deliberations the petitioner was found to be eligible to be placed under Jharkhand cadre, merely because it will be inconvenient to the petitioner there may not be an occasion for this Court to interfere with such a decision. It is high time that the issues be allowed to rest by enforcement of the orders as things must settle down now since the division of the States happened almost a decade back. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)