IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13100 of 2010 1. ANIL KUMAR S/O SRI GAJADHAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- LALGANJ KHARJAMA, P.O.- CHANDI, DISTT.- NALANDA, PRESENTLY POSTED AT 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 DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, THROUGH THE SECRETARY 2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BIHAR IRRIGATION HOUSE, PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BIHAR, IRRIGATION THE HOUSE, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHVESHVARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHVESHVARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 7. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Mukesh Sinha, Adv. For the Union of India :- Mr. Sudhir Kr. Tiwary, Adv. ------------ 4. 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the State Advisory Committee. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 16990 of 2009, aggrieved by the cadre allocation to the State of Jharkhand consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar. The only ground urged was the denial of the right to remain in the State of Bihar as per his option exercised. The Court observed that mere exercise of option does not vest a legal right to 2 demand acceptance. No allegations for violation of any criteria laid down for allocation of cadres had been made. Noticing the submissions being made beyond the pleadings liberty was given to represent. The fresh impugned order dated 13.7.2010 passed by the State Advisory Committee takes it beyond the pale of any controversy that the tentative list allocating the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand was published on 4.5.2006 inviting objections latest by 31.8.2006. The petitioner had no grievance with regard to the allocation of his services to the State of Jharkhand till the cut off date. After the expiry of the stipulated date, he had a rethink on the issue and submitted a representation beyond the time prescribed as late as 26.10.2007 now desiring to be allocated the State of Bihar. The final allocation was done in April, 2009 on basis of his original no objection to remain in the State of Jharkhand. Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously relied on Clause VII of the guidelines for allocation of cadres dealing with consideration of time barred representations. He submits that even if the representation was time barred it may not ipso facto be a complete bar and such application could also be considered on merits. The guidelines themselves visualizes the entertaining of a belated representation. The State 3 Government was required to forward it to the State Advisory Committee which may or may not have considered it. The representation could not been withheld by the State Government on the ground of its being time barred. If the petitioner had a grievance with regard to his cadre allocation, it was for him to raise all his grievances in C.W.J.C. No. 16990 of 2009. An indulgence granted by the Court based upon inadequate pleadings attributable to the petitioner cannot be turned by him to his own advantage by taking benefit of his own lapses to found a fresh cause of action on any order passed thereafter. This is based on the principle that no person shall be vexed time and again on the same issue. The present writ application is founded only on a claim for consideration of a belated representation. The present writ application also does not plead any violation of the criteria laid down for cadre allocation much less any mode, method and manner in which his service career and future prospects shall be jeopardized in the State of Jharkhand except for urging that his juniors were allotted the State of Bihar where his parents reside. The Court holds that a mere afterthought on part of the petitioner upon expiry of the last date fixed for filing of objections shall not vest in him a right to be 4 considered under the discretionary Clause VII of the guidelines. If that were to be done, the whole purpose of fixing the last date for inviting objections shall be frustrated. Nothing has been demonstrated before the Court of the unavoidable circumstances due to which the petitioner could not file any objection before 31.8.2006. That leaves the only conclusion of an afterthought and rethinking on his part to agitate issues which he himself had no grievance against earlier. The reorganization of the State of Bihar has been a mammoth and historical exercise. Given the magnitude of the same and number of personnel involved, there has to be some amount of heart burning. Administrative decisions could not have been to the liking of one and all. But it is not every heart burning which shall be lightly interfered by the Court. If that were to be done, it shall become an unending process disturbing the entire arrangement. It is not each and every grievances which can be vindicated and lightly interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unless and until grave and serious prejudice affecting the service career and prospect are involved the Court should not interfere. No such question has been raised. It has been held in (2007) 7 SCC 250 (Indradeo Paswan v. Union of India) as follows in 5 Paragraphs 8, 9 and 12 :- “8. We may notice straightaway that no case of mala fides or irrationality has been made out in the matter of allocation of the appellant to the reorganised State of Bihar. The case is pitched only on the ground of non-acceptance of the option of the appellant and an attack on the grounds for its rejection. 9…..The acceptance of the argument that subsequent events are bound to be taken note of in various individual cases would mean that the bifurcation would never become final or at least would not become final for years together, a state of affairs which the court or any executive, must avoid as far as possible. 12. We see no reason not to accept the principle adopted in Prakash Chandra Sinha1 by the High Court that the allocation should not be interfered with on individual grievances relating to non-acceptance of options exercised, unless clear illegality or Wednesbury unreasonableness is established. The State was reorganised with effect from 20-11-2000. We are in the year 2007. It had taken almost five years for the Union of India to publish the final list of allocation regarding this Department. In the absence of any clear ground for interference found in the case, merely on the ground that the appellant had opted for going to the State of Jharkhand but had been allocated to the State of Bihar, it does not appear to be necessary or proper to interfere with the order of allocation.” There is no merit in this application, it is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)