IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12989 of 2008 VIJAY SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Home (Special) Department, Patna 3. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Patna 4. The Deputy Director General of Police (Personnel), Patna. 5. The Addl. Director General, Railway, Patna. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railway, Patna. 7. The Inspector General of Police, Railway Zone, Patna. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur 9. The State Advisory Committee. ----------- 6. 13.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the State Advisory Committee. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Sub- Inspector of Police from the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police much earlier to the reorganization of the State of Bihar and consequent need for reallocation of cadres. His grievance is that notwithstanding the fact that he is a Sub-Inspector his case is sought to be considered for allocation to the State of Jharkhand as a Steno Sub-Inspector. The State of Bihar in its counter affidavit acknowledges that the petitioner has acquired the status of a Sub- Inspector prior to the reorganization of the State of Bihar. The counter affidavit on behalf of the State Advisory Committee at paragraph 12 acknowledges that in pursuance of his option the petitioner has been allocated the State of Bihar. The counter affidavit of the State Advisory 2 Committee then goes on to state that the cadre allocation contains the names of one Vinay Singh, who as Steno Sub-Inspector has been allocated the State of Jharkhand. That it is not very certain if this Vinay Singh is the same as the petitioner Vijay Singh. The only issue on facts remains in the case is whether the petitioner has already been allocated the State of Bihar or whether he is simultaneously sought to be allocated the State of Jharkhand on a post of Steno Sub-Inspector which he no more holds. In that view of the matter, this Court considers it proper to direct the State of Bihar to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the statements made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the State Advisory Committee that the petitioner in accordance with his option has already been allocated the State of Bihar by the State Advisory Committee. If that be correct, perhaps, no further action may be required and the grievance of the petitioner may stand redressed. If position be otherwise, and the petitioner has been allocated the State of Jharkhand simultaneously as Steno Sub- Inspector, quite obviously the matter is required to be reconsidered in accordance with law by the State Advisory Committee or the Central Government as the case may be. Let such consideration commence by the State of Bihar and a final decision taken within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/production of a copy of this 3 order. It goes without saying that there cannot be a simultaneous allocation of the petitioner to the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand also. If the occasion arises in a report of the State of Bihar sent to the State Advisory Committee or the Central Government, as the case may be, they are required to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of such communication from the State of Bihar. The issue of joining of the petitioner necessarily is to abide by the aforesaid decision. Till such time, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for any purported non-joining. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)