IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10331 of 2006 CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHOUDHARY Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. P. N. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. For the State of Bihar: Md. Arif, Adv. For the State of Jharkhand: Dhruba Mukherjee, Adv. ***** 06. 10.02.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel, appearing for the State of Bihar, the State Advisory Committee as well as the counsel, appearing for the State of Jharkhand. Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondents, the State of Bihar, the State Advisory Committee as well as the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner was working as Agricultural Inspector in the State of Bihar, prior to reorganization of the State of Jharkhand. In terms of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, options were invited from the employees for allocation of cadre, either to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand. The options were invited in the year 2001. Petitioner’s case is that on 11.02.2001, he submitted his option for allocation of his service to the 2 State of Bihar. In support of this fact, he has only annexed the UPC (Under Postal Certificate), addressed to the Agricultural Production Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Agriculture, State of Bihar. The request letter for allocation of cadre to the State of Bihar has not been annexed. When the tentative allocation list was published, a notice was also issued to all employees to submit their objection to the tentative allocation list. At this time, on 15.03.2003, the petitioner submitted his objection against his allocation of cadre to the State of Bihar in the tentative allocation list. From the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it transpires that the objection filed by the petitioner was forwarded to the State Advisory Committee, but finally the petitioner’s service was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State Advisory Committee is very specific in para 17, sub-para (iv), (v) and (vi) that why despite the objection submitted by the petitioner against the allocation of cadre to the State of Jharkhand in the tentative allocation list, objection of the petitioner was not considered and instead of allocating him the State 3 of Bihar, his service was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. From the Counter Affidavit of State Advisory Committee, it transpires that the criteria are fixed for entertaining objections, giving priority to the employees belonging to different category. From this Counter Affidavit, it transpires that the petitioner’s claim that he submitted his option on 11.02.2001, is not accepted as no document was produced by the petitioner, except the UPC (Under Postal Certificate), addressed to the Agricultural Production Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Agriculture, State of Bihar. The petitioner’s case was put in the category of non-optee. The case of the employees, belonging to this category has been given last preference. In the category of non-optees, seniority was also considered. The case of senior non- optee employee is to be given preference. Petitioner being junior in the category of non-optee, was not allowed the cadre of State of Bihar. In the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it has been stated that Jharkhand State has no objection, if the State of Bihar is ready for exchange of one to one employee in the 4 same cadre on consideration of the general as well as reserved category. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner’s case is not such, which can be categorized as a case, which was not considered by the authorities. There was full consideration to the case of the petitioner and finally it was found that his objection can not be allowed against the tentative allocation list. At this stage no direction can be issued to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand to give effect to the objection of the petitioner. The only option left to the petitioner is to file representation before the Nodal Department, i.e., Home Department of the State of Bihar and only the Nodal Department can consider the case of the petitioner, if there is any hope for it. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)