IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9279 of 2008 GULAB PRASAD GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 19.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by allocation of his services to the State of Jharkhand consequent to the re-organization of the State of Bihar. He had earlier come to this Court in CWJC No. 5045 of 2008 when after some argument writ application was dismissed as withdrawn to pursue departmental remedies. It needs no emphasis that such orders are passed when the petitioner finds that the Court is reluctant to interfere with and then prefer to withdraw rather to invite an adverse adjudication. In this repeat writ application, the emphasis is that the option submitted by the petitioner has not been considered. The writ application does not raise any allegations of non-compliance or violation of the parameters laid down by the State Advisory Committee for allocation of cadres and which has prejudicially affected the petitioner in the option exercised by him. No allegations of malafide of a nature to warrant interference have also been pleaded. Reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007(1) PLJR 138 (Prem Lal Singh v. The State of Bihar & ors.) to submit that in a case where a person had submitted his option but due to lapse of the concerned department treating it as a case of no option allocation had been made to the State of Jharkhand. - 2 - This Court held that the individual concerned was required to be reconsidered and the allocation made consequent to such non- consideration was bad in law. The options were invited in the year 2001. It has taken six long years in finalization of the allocation of cadres. The exercise was historic and mammoth. Individual heart burning for reasons of exercise of option not being satisfied was bound to be there. But mere exercise of option does not vest legal right to found a cause of action upon the same simplicitor. In absence of any materials that consequent to violation of parameters by the State Advisory Committee the exercise of option have been rendered useless or unless there be allegation of gross illegality and what is termed as wednesbury unreasonableness or serious allegations of malafide, there would be no occasion for the writ Court to interfere on mere individual sufferings arrived out of unsatisfied option. This aspect has been fully considered by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCC 250 (Indra Deo Paswan v. The Union of India & ors.) arising out of the Bihar Re-organization Act itself and the issue of option exercised thereunder. There is no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)