IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11837 of 2010 1. Rajesh Kumar Sinha son of Krishna Kant Prasad Sinha resident of Village-Hind Piri, First Street Near Hind Piri Police Station, Ranchi (Jharkhand), at present-Drug Inspector, Aurangabad. 2. Pankaj Kumar Verma S/o Sri Mahesh Chandra Verma, resident of Nehru Park, River side P.O. Saunda, P.S.-Bharkunda, District- Ramgarh, at present Drug Inspector, Supaul. 3. Arun Kumar S/o Sri Basudeo Prasad, Panjabi Colony Near Namkunj Railway Station, Ranchi (Jharkhand) at present-Drug Inspector Muzaffarpur (East Sub-division) Gowshala Road, Muzaffarpur. 4. Rajesh Kumar S/o K.N. Singh, Near S.P. Kathi, Hazaribagh, at present-Drug Inspector Chapra (Sadar). 5. Sheo Shankar Kumar S/o Sri Bal Gobind Lal Agrawal, resident of Village-Rajganj, District-Dhanbad, at present Drug Inspector, Saharsa. …Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department Govt. of Bihar. 4. Joint Secretary-Cum-Nodal Officer, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Controller of Drugs, Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. For the petitioner:-Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the State of Bihar:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the State of Jharkhand:-N.N. Ojha, Advocate. ----------- 2. 22.11.2011 I.A. No. 1187/11 has been filed seeking permission to implead State of Jharkhand as a party respondent. Having heard counsel for the parties, the I.A. application is allowed. Let the cause title be corrected accordingly. The petitioners are stated to be applicants under Advertisement No. 2 of 2000 published by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The vacancies were published prior to the cut off date for re-organization of the State fixed as 15.11.2000. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Inspector in the 2 Health Department in the year 2004. It is contended that on 25.12.2009 notice had been published inviting options for cadre allocation to the State of Bihar/Jharkhand. The petitioners filed their applications on 11.01.2010 opting for the State of Jharkhand which has been rejected on 19.03.2010 stating that they were applicants of the year 2004, not required to be considered. Learned counsel submits that the original application in response to the advertisement was made when the State was unified. If re-organization intervened before appointment and the respondents have subsequently invited objections before allocation, the benefit has to be given to the petitioners also. The learned counsel for the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand have supported the impugned order. If the advertisement was published prior to the re- organization of the State, the vacancies advertised must also have been restructured based on the posts that may have been allotted to the respective new States. Prima facie, appointments made after the cut off date shall pertain to that State where the appointment be made based on restructured vacancies. The petitioners have not demonstrated if any criterion was fixed by the State Re-organization Committee in this regard. In (2007) 7 SCC 250 the Supreme Court has observed that the re-organization of the State and consequent 3 cadre allocations was a historic and mammoth exercise. There was bound to be some heart burning individually. But Court should not be inclined to interfere merely because a person may be aggrieved by denial of place of his choice. The larger perspective has to be kept in mind. The petitioners have not demonstrated that any prejudice in service is going to be caused to them if they are not allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The circular dated 12.02.2009 deals with such persons whose final allocation had been done contrary to option or those who had not submitted any option leading to denial of cadre allocation as per choice. The petitioners do not fall in either category. The application is dismissed. Kamlesh (Navin Sinha, J.)