IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 176 of 2008 (S/B) Satyendra Sharma ….…… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ………. Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Ms. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. / respondent No. 6. Date of Judgment: 23.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Prior to coming into force of Uttar Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2000, in the Public Works Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, there was a hill sub-cadre. The State of Uttar Pradesh, from time to time, determined the strength of the said cadre. As on the date of coming into force of the said Act, strength of the Assistant Engineers in the said cadre was 195. However, only 82 Assistant Engineers were then working in the said hill sub-cadre. On the date of coming into force of the said Act, the hill sub-cadre stood abolished. As a result, cadre strength of Assistant Engineers in the hill sub-cadre in the Public Works Department, fixed at 195, also stood obliterated. After the said Act came into force, it was decided that amongst 1227 posts of Assistant Engineer available in the Public Works Department of the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh, 204 posts of Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department shall be available for the State of Uttarakhand. Those 204 posts were comprised of the said 195 posts and 9 more post available in the district of Hardwar. 2. Petitioner opted for the State of Uttarakhand. In the tentative list, his name was not incorporated. Petitioner made a representation. The said representation was rejected, proceeding on the basis that only 9 posts available for the district of Hardwar are available, of which 8 posts have already been allocated and the remaining 1 post is to be allocated on the 2 basis of seniority. Since petitioner was not the senior most, he could not be adjusted in the said post. Petitioner has alleged in the petition, which has not been denied either by the State of Uttar Pradesh or by the State of Uttarakhand or by the Central Government in their respective counter affidavits that in terms of decision of the Central Government taken in 2001, only 82 Assistant Engineers, who were part of the hill sub-cadre, till such time such sub-cadre was in existence, were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. From the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Committee, it appears that in addition thereto, 8 Assistant Engineers were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Thus altogether, 90 Assistant Engineers were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the circumstances, the reason furnished in the order of the Advisory Committee, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, and the stand taken in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents that due to absence of posts available in the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner could not be allocated, is not sustainable factually. The matter requires to be reconsidered. We, accordingly, direct the Central Government to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. In the event on such reconsideration the Central Government is of the view that the final allocation list is required to be amended, it shall be entitled to do so. This disposes of the writ petition. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.03.2011 23.03.2011 Amit