IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7010 of 2008 DEVENDRA KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 22.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the State Advisory Committee. The petitioner on the appointed date i.e. 15.11.2000 was working as an Assistant in the Land Records and Survey Department of the erstwhile unified State of Bihar. In pursuance of the option invited for the purpose of allocation of cadres to the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar, the petitioner submitted his option for the State of Bihar in which he declared himself to be a backward category candidate. The State Advisory Committee considered him as backward category candidate, when in their counter affidavit it has been stated that all backward category candidates were allotted the State of Bihar. The grievance of the petitioner is that after 15.11.2000 a fresh gradation list was published by the Respondents of Assistants. In this gradation list, the petitioner has been shown as a general category candidate. In fact, the petitioner was appointed in the general category and his service benefits etc. all reflects that he is in fact a general category candidate throughout and has not availed any benefit of the backward category candidate. It is next submitted that the petitioner does not have any intention of availing any benefit of backward category candidates. That this gradation list is the subject matter of challenge in another pending writ application. - 2 - The counter affidavit of the Respondents states that the case of the petitioner has been considered as a reserve category candidate in accordance with the option given by him. The counter affidavit of the State Advisory Committee further states that the Department of Personnel of the State of Bihar sent a large number of representations, which resulted in more than thousand corrections in either reservation category or seniority, addition and deletion from the relevant list etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strongly relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006(3) PLJR 548 (Mithilesh Narain v. The Union of India & ors.) more particularly paragraphs 8,9 & 10 of the same. The facts on record in the present case appear to be slightly different to the extent that there is no admission by the State in the present case that the petitioner was appointed and has throughout in his service has been dealt with as a general category candidate. The Respondents have harped on his reserve status based on the option form submitted by him. The cause of action, the new gradation list, is itself subjudice before this Court in another writ application. This Court is next informed by the counsel for the State Advisory Committee that the allocation of cadre consequent to the reorganization of the State has been a mammoth exercise where individual suffering would become inescapable. To this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this suffering would be in extreme magnanimity affecting service prospects, career growth prospects, salary etc. to warrant interference. - 3 - No such ground has presently been urged to persuade this Court to go into this aspect of the matter. This Court is not persuaded to close its eyes to the nature of the exercise carried out to hinge upon technicality only to mechanically allow this writ application. On the records as it stand, this Court is satisfied that no occasion for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution more so when the status of the petitioner in service is a matter itself to be verified from the service records, the gradation list on which the cause of action is founded is still subjudice. To that extent, this Court declined to interfere in the matter. In (2007) 7 SCC 250 (Indra Deo Paswan v. The Union of India & ors.) the Supreme Court was considering a similar challenge to the allocation of cadres under the Bihar Re-organization Act. The High Court had declined to interfere. The Apex Court approved the view of the High Court that the allocation should not be interfered with on individual grievance unless clear illegality or wednesbury unreasonableness is established. It was also noticed that it had taken five years to publish the final list of allocation in that case (seven years in this case). Applying the ratio therein, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has established any case for violation of the provisions of the Bihar Re-organization Act or the norms set out therein while allocating his services to the State of Jharkhand. The writ application is, therefore, disposed off with the observation that if the petitioner so desires he may pursue the matter before the authority by filing a representation when the factual aspects - 4 - sought to be raised by him will have to be considered by them in their administrative perspective which shall not in any manner be inhibited by any observation made herein in which the Court may have declined to interfere. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)