IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15836 of 2005 HARI NANDAN SINGH, son of late Ramashish Singh, resident of Mohalla – Hill Bihar Colony, Demna Chawk, Mango, Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum, at present working and posted at Dehri-on-sone as Typist in Planning and Monitoring Division, Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas, Kaimur (Bhabhua). 6. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Indrapuri, Planning and Monitoring Division, Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas. 7. The Executive Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Division, Dehri- on-sone, Rohtas. 8. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand at Ranchi. 9. The Enmgineer-in-chief, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand at Ranchi. 10. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. 11. The Superintending Engineer, Design Planning and Monitoring. Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. 12. The Chairman of the State Advisory Committee, Government of Bihar, Patna, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ----------- 03. 27.9.2010 Petitioner is a typist at present working under the Irrigation Department at Dehri-on-sone. When the bifurcation of the State took place petitioner made a claim to be transferred to the State of Jharkhand as he primarily hails from Jharkhand. Application had also been submitted by him making such a request but when no decision was taken he decided to file a writ application. Stand of the respondents is that claim of the petitioner is totally misplaced. Petitioner was initially appointed in the field office in what is known as Swarnrekha Project of Galudih. When this project 2 was wound up petitioner came to be adjusted under the State and was transferred to Dehri by way of accommodation. The bifurcation of the State by itself does not create a right in favour of the petitioner to demand his transfer to the State of Jharkhand because a policy decision had been taken that the division of the cadre of employees working in the regional office would not be carried out. If only the petitioner was working in a department in the State level cadre, the question of entertaining the request for transfer on bifurcation could have been maintained. This is the reason why the petitioner could not be obliged despite request for the division of cadre or his transfer to Jharkhand. There is no right of the petitioner to claim any allocation of cadre as such, in absence of any rules or policy in this regard. If that is the stated position then no direction can be given for sending the petitioner to Jharkhand, merely because he belongs to Jharkhand. The writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)