IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3089 of 2007 Ajay Kumar, SON OF LATE CHANDRADEEP PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAYA BAZAR, MAHAVIR ASTHAN, P.S. BANK MORE DHANBAD, DISTRICT- DHANBAD (JHARKHAND) :-- PETITIONER. Versus 1. The Union Of India THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SINCHAI AVAS, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VISWASWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, RANCHI :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhya, Advocate. For the Union of India :- Mr. P.L. Jaiswal (C.G.C.) For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Awadhesh Kumar (A.C. to S.C. 17) For the State of Jharkhand:- Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate. ===== 3. 13.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the bifurcated State of Bihar. He has filed this writ petition questioning the order of the State Advisory Committee bearing Memo No. 700 dated 18.12.2006, Annexure-1, whereunder in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 11.9.2006 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner bearing C.W.J.C.No. 14544 of 2004 cadre of the petitioner has been finally allocated in the bifurcated State of Bihar ignoring his option for allocating Jharkhand as the cadre for the reason that his home district is in the State of Jharkhand. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has 2 referred to Paragraph 7.6 of the minutes of the State Advisory Committee dated 31.10.2001, Annexure-2, whereunder it was resolved to consider the case of all the reserved category except S.T. for allocation of cadre together. Reference in this connection has also been made to Paragraph 7 (g) (i) of the earlier counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary of the State Advisory Committee, Bihar, Patna in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “(i). The quota of personnel that remains available for each state if first filled up by those having home district in that state and who have also exercised option for that state.” 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that had the State Advisory Committee considered the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the minutes paragraph 7.6 and the contents of Paragraph 7(g) (i) of the counter affidavit petitioner ought not to have been retained in the State of Bihar but allocated to Jharkhand State. It is also submitted that while allocating the cadre of others named in the petition the instructions contained in paragraph 7.6 and the contents of paragraph 7(g)(i) of the counter affidavit was relied upon but the case of the petitioner for reasons best known to the State Advisory Committee was not considered in the light of the minutes and the 3 contents of the counter affidavit. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition the State Advisory Committee has become defunct. In the circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by quashing the order of the State Advisory Committee, which is subject to the final approval by the Government of India. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date no order has been passed by the competent authority of the Government of India finally allocating the petitioner bifurcated State of Bihar as his cadre. In such view of the matter, I grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order bearing Memo No. 700 dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the Chairman of the State Advisory Committee before the competent authority of the Union of India i.e. Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Respondent No. 1 herein. The challenge made by the petitioner to the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2006, Annexure-1 be considered as expeditiously as possible by the competent authority of the Union of India, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the challenge. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)