IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11535 of 2009 Radhe Shyam Singh, son of late Satya Narayan Singh, resident of village and post office Karahansi, Police Station Natwar, District Rohtas, presently posted as Clerk, Directorate Medical Services, ESI Scheme, Bihar, Department of Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary, Department of Home (Special) Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training Government of India, having office at third floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003 ----------- 02/ 04.09.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Union of India, Department of Personnel and Training dated 10.7.2009, Annexure-2 series, whereunder in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-clause (2) of Section 72 of the Bihar Reorgnisation Act, 2000, petitioner has been allocated Jharkhand Cadre in consideration of the fact that petitioner is junior most amongst those, who had opted for Bihar cadre, the order dated 10.7.2009 has been communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (Home) Special Department under letter No. 6163 dated 18.8.2009, Annexure-2 series calling upon the petitioner to join the allocated cadre by 11.9.2009, failing which 2 he will be deemed to have been relieved by the authorities of the Labour Department of the State of Bihar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that earlier in 2006 M/s Jitendra Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Jha were allocated to Jharkhand Cadre considering the fact that they were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerks, there is no occasion for the authorities now to revise their opinion by allocating the petitioner to Jharkhand Cadre under impugned order dated 10.7.2009. 5. It appears, while considering the cadre strength of Clerks in the Labour Department of the two States, the authorities in the year 2006 were of the view that 54 Clerks from Bihar were required to be allocated Jharkhand cadre and order dated 30.1.2006, Annexure-8 series was passed allocating 54 Clerks to Jharkhand State, including M/s Jitendra Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Jha, who were juniors to the petitioner. Having passed the order dated 30.1.2006, Annexure-8 series, the authorities of the Union of India found that 1/3rd cadre strength of Clerks of the Labour Deptt. of the united Bihar has not been allocated to Jharkhand cadre and in order to achieve the same again considered the cadre strength of Clerks in the Labour Deptt. of two States and found that still one more Clerk from Bihar is required to be allocated to Jharkhand cadre so as to ensure allocation of 1/3rd cadre strength of Clerks serving the 3 Labour Deptt. of united Bihar to Jharkhand State and for achieving transfer of 1/3rd cadre strength to Jharkhand, junior most Clerk serving in the Labour Department of the State of Bihar i.e. petitioner has been allocated Jharkhand cadre under order dated 10.7.2009, Annexure-2 series. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties in view of my findings in paragraph 5 above, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order dated 10.7.2009, Annexure-2 series and this writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)