IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.5331 OF 2005 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE R. P. RAM, RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. 4, ROAD NO. 6C, GARDANIBAGH, PATNA. AT PRESENT, WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. SHATRUGHAN MISHRA, SON OF LATE KRISHNADEO MISHRA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GOOR HATTA, POLICE STATION KHAJEKALAN, DISTRICT PATNA. AT PRESENT, WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SPECIAL, BIHAR PATNA 3. KALI BAITHA, SON OF LATE RAM BRIKSH BAITHA, RESIDENT OF ROAD NO. 4, RAJEEV NAGAR, POLICE STATION DIGHA, DISTRICT PATNA. AT PRESENT WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. MANDEO SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA, VILLAGE AND POST EKAWANA, POLICE STATION BARAHARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, ARA. AT PRESENT, WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. DEVENDRA MISHRA, SON OF LATE MADHUSUDAN MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST ORRO, POLICE STATION HASUA, DISTRICT NAWADA. AT PRESENT WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES (SUGARCANE DEVELOPMENT), NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR PATNA …………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI .....................................................................................RESPONDENTS ******** 4 21/04/2010 Heard the parties. The main grievance of the petitioners is that their services have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand de hors the rules decided by the State Governments and the Government of India. 2 The State Advisory Committee was constituted to examine the cases of each and every person in different categories before allocation of their services to the State of Jharkhand. The facts with respect to this case are already enumerated in CWJC No. 6653 of 2004. This writ application was filed challenging the tentative list for the allocation of the services of the petitioners to the State of Jharkhand which was disposed of on 03.08.2004 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioners afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with the guideline/rule for such allocation of the services of the employees/petitioners. After disposal of the writ application, Annexure 6 was issued by the Director rejecting the representation of the petitioners to be retained in the State of Bihar. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation which has been disposed of by the Government of India is not by a reasoned order and does not refer to the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the allocation of their services to the State of Jharkhand. I may state here that the petitioners’ objections for the allocation of their services to the State 3 of Jharkhand are two-fold. It is said that the petitioners had exercise their option in favour of remaining in the State of Bihar; they claim that they were senior most Section Officers and were to be promoted to the post of Under Secretary and as such, they should have been retained in the State of Bihar. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the Chairman of the State Advisory Committee which has considered and specified the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners in paragraph 15 (i) of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “The Administrative department had sent the list of personnel to this Committee showing the petitioner no. 1 and 3 in SC and 2, 4 and 5 in the general category, their home districts at various places in Bihar, option as Bihar and their gradation number 1026, 1007, 1010, 1005 and 1006 taken in the same order. The total working strength of the cadre was shown as 145, which was apportioned between Bihar and Jharkhand as 92 and 53 respectively. The working strength in the General category was 90, which was apportioned as 62 and 28. The working strength in the SC category was 38, which was also apportioned as 24 and 14. This was done following the principles stated in 4 the paragraph 7 (b), 7 (d) and 7 (e). The Bihar quota of 62 in General category was first filled up by 32 special cases covered under paragraph 7 (f) leaving a balance of 30. Against this there were options of 41 general category incumbents whose home district also fell in Bihar. Thus going by the principles stated in paragraph 4(g)(i) and 4 (g) (vi) the senior most 30 were allocated to Bihar. The cut off point was reached at gradation number 1002. All remaining incumbents, including the petitioners, who were below the cut off point, had to be allocated to Jharkhand. Similarly, in the SC the Bihar quota of 24 was first filled up by 5 special cases leaving a balance of 19. Against this quota of 19 there were 26 options from those having home district in Bihar. Following the same principles, the cut off point was reached at gradation no. 997. The petitioners fell below the cut off point in their respective reservation category and were allocated to Jharkhand against both home state and option. The allocation has thus been done following well-defined principles.” In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners that they were the senior most persons does not appear to be correct. It is also apparent that they did not come within the zone of consideration 5 as they had got lower points in the different categories to which they belong and as such their applications were rejected. Therefore, in affect, the petitioners’ objections have been explained by the Authorities concerned and it cannot be said that the Authorities have not applied their mind and considered the rules & regulations before allocating the services of the petitioners to the State of Jharkhand. The aforesaid position leads this Court to come to a conclusion that there is no illegality in the allocation order of the petitioners and as such this writ application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)