IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5054 of 2008 LALAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 14.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide notification dated 17.3.2006 contained in annexure-6 and a subsequent order dated 27.12.2007 contained in annexure-9 petitioner has gone and joined State of Jhakhand as Block Agriculture Officer in the district of Jamtara. But the grievance of the petitioner is that incorrect decision was taken by the State Advisory Committee in deciding the objection raised by the petitioner whereby he had right to continue in service in Bihar cadre. According to petitioner his wife is an Assistant Teacher and is a government employee holding a transferable post. The statement was categorically made and asserted in the application filed before the Bihar State Advisory Committee but the concerned authorities in the State without doing their home work communicated that the petitioner’s wife was not a teacher in a government school. Petitioner therefore had to resort to the provision of Right to Information Act and now has brought evidence on record contained in annexure-11 that the school in question where the petitioner’s wife is working is a government school which was nationalized way back in the year, 1971. Petitioner’s wife is a permanent assistant teacher which is borne out from the evidence brought on record. If this is the position then the decision rendered by the - 2 - State Advisory Committee contained in annexure-9 would be a decision rendered on an incorrect fact or inputs and that too having been furnished by the respondent State authorities and not the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the same. This Court is of the opinion that the State Advisory Committee requires to re-look into the matter afresh irrespective of the order they have already passed in annexure-9. The Court is not quashing annexure-9 because the petitioner has already gone and joined there but this Court gives liberty to petitioner to file a fresh application which will be treated in furtherance to the earlier application with the supporting evidence which he has obtained under the Right to Information Act including the fact that his wife is a government servant appointed much earlier by the respondents. The State Advisory Committee shall thereafter consider the matter afresh in the above light and pass appropriate order. The petitioner has liberty to move the State Advisory Committee through proper channel in this regard and the State authorities as well as the State Advisory Committee shall thereafter render an opinion within a period of three months. His final allocation of cadre will be dependant upon the outcome of the above exercise. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction and liberty to petitioner. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)