IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7260 of 2009 MANTI KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 25.11.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. The writ application as well as the interlocutory application has been taken up together. Petitioner had earlier moved before this court for similar relief by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1706 of 2008 which was disposed of by order dated 19.02.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner for filing representation before the Advisory Committee for consideration of her case. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it transpires that the representation of the petitioner was recommended to the Advisory Committee for necessary action and the State Advisory Committee by letter No. 5745 dated 10.04.2008 had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that service of the petitioner as well as her husband are of district cadre. So far the petitioner is concerned, she was appointed much after the bifurcation of the state. The state of Jharkhand bifurcated in November, 2000 and the petitioner was appointed on the post of A.N.M. in 2002. In such cases, the employees can not claim their transfer from one State to another and that cannot be considered as a case for mutual transfer or optional transfer on account of 2 bifurcation of the state. There is no merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)