IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3443 of 2007 MADAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 13.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in annexure 1 by virtue of which he was relieved to join Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that way back on 11.3.2003 which is evident from annexure-2 he had given an application for mutual transfer with one Ignasiyus Hemberm. According to him this representation and the request for mutual transfer has never been acted upon and without considering the issue the notification contained in annexure-1 has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand informs the Court that pursuant to the order the petitioner has already gone and joined Jharkhand State. But the petitioner is aggrieved because if there was a provision for accommodation on mutual transfer basis then the Chairman of the Bihar State Advisory Committee, who was entrusted with the responsibility of bifurcating the cadre division ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. There is no representation on behalf of the State of Bihar. This Court disposes of this writ application with liberty to petitioner to reiterate his claim as contained in annexure- 2 by way of a fresh application along with a copy of annexure-2 and the Bihar State Advisory Committee of Cadre Division shall - 2 - communicate to the petitioner the decision taken in this regard. Let the exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation along with a copy of this order. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with the above observation and direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)