IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16990 of 2009 1. ANIL KUMAR S/O SRI GAJADHAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- LALGANJ KHARJAMA, P.O. CHANDI, P.S. CHANDI, DISTT.- NALANDA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PROJECT ENGINEER IN BIHAR STATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., ROAD DIVISION, PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC COMPLAINTS AND PENSION, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DEPTT., GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, THROUGH THE SECRETARY 2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 7. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 8. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI THROUGH THE CHIF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI 9. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ----------- 2/ 21/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State of Bihar, for the State of Jharkhand and for the Union of India. In this writ application, grievance is with regard to the cadre allocation of the petitioner in the scheduled caste category, Road Construction Department to the State of Jharkhand. The pleadings are only with regard to denial of the option exercised to remain in the State of Bihar. The law stands settled that mere exercise of option by a candidate does not vest a legal right in him to demand acceptance of the same. Something more is required in law to compel acceptance of the option. There are no pleadings in the writ application that contrary to the criteria for allocation of 2 cadres, the petitioner has been denied his option when a person below him in the seniority list of his own category has been allocated the State of Bihar to the prejudice of the petitioner. To that extent, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.8.2009. During the course of submission, Mr. Manglam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in fact certain persons junior to the petitioner in the seniority list of reserved category to which he belongs have been allocated the State of Bihar to the prejudice of the petitioner. If the petitioner is raising fresh grounds beyond the writ application, his remedy lies first to approach the authority for the same placing full facts. If the petitioner files such application before the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar making full disclosures of the name of such persons below him in his category, their seniority position in the reserved category, pointing out the infirmities in the cadre allocation vis-à-vis the same, this Court directs the Secretary, Road Construction Department to forthwith forward the same to the State Advisory Committee, who will consider the same in accordance with law expeditiously. It is only in the 3 event that the petitioner files a representation in the manner as discussed above, the Respondents shall be obliged to consider the same. Learned counsel for the State Advisory Committee submits that in what manner the option was exercised by the petitioner may also be relevant. These are matters to be considered by the State Advisory Committee. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)