IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18879 of 2008 1. ANIL KUMAR URAO, S/O CHANDU URAO, R/O VILLAGE-SHASTRI NAGAR, P.O.+DISTRICT- GUMLA, JHARKHAND. 2. BALESHWAR RAM, S/O LATE LANGTI RAM, R/O VILLAGE-HURHURA, WARD NO.3, DISTRICT- HAZARIBAGH, JHARKHAND. 3. BAIJANATH THAKUR, S/O GOKUL THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-BABUPUR, P.S.-BARHAT, DISTRICT- SAHEBGANJ, JHARKHAND. 4. BIPIN BHAGAT, S/O BHUBNESHWAR BHAGAT, R/O VILLAGE-AMBATOLI, P.S.-GAIGHAT, DISTRICT- GUMLA, JHARKHAND. 5. ASHOK PANDIT, S/O LATE UPENDRA PANDIT, R/O VILLAGE-BARKALA, P.S.-PATHNA, DISTRICT- SAHEBGANJ, JHARKHAND. 6. BUDHRAM BHAGAT, S/O JATARU BHAGAT, R/O VILLAGE-MURTO, P.S.-CHANHO, DISTRICT- RANCHI, JHARKHAND. 7. MANOJ PRASAD GUPTA, S/O KAPURCHANDRA SAH, R/O VILLAGE-PATRA KHURD, P.S.-JAPLA, DISTRICT-PALAMU, JHARKHAND. 8. ANANT BARAI, S/O MEGHAN BARAI, R/O VILLAGE-GARILON, P.S.-TADWA, DISTRICT- CHATRA, JHARKHAND. 9. SURENDRA PRASAD MAHTO, S/O MOTILAL MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE-GUDDU, P.S.-RATU, DISTRICT- RANCHI, JHARKHAND. 10. LOCHAN PRASAD KUSHAWAHA, S/O DHATRI MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE-RACHGA, P.S.-GHURCHU, DISTRICT-HAZARIBAGH, JHARKHAND. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING STATE RE-ORGANISATION CELL, NEW DELHI. 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, STATE RE-ORGANISATION CELL, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF OF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. 7. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI, JHARKHAND. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.B.N.P.Singh, Adv. For Union of India : Mr.S.N.Pathak, 2 Sr.S.C.C.G. For State of Bihar : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-IX. For State of Jharkhand : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. with Mr.Dhruba Mukherjee, Adv. ---------------- 5 09.11.2011 Though the advertisement was issued in 1997, petitioners have been appointed on class-IV post in the State of Bihar in 2002, after bifurcation of the State. Petitioners claim that since their home districts are in Jharkhand State they should be transferred there. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any provision from the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 which could provide any help to the petitioners for consideration of their claim. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)