RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he was inducted into the service of the Public Works Department against the post of Assistant Engineer. It is submitted, that at the time of his appointment, he had expressly asserted that he wanted to be appointed to the Hill Sub Cadre only. Based on the option exercised by him, it is contended, that ever since the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Engineer in 1995, he has continued to render services in territories which later became the successor State of Uttarakhand. In fact, it is the pointed contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that his postings in the territory of the successor State of Uttarakhand have remained confined to the Hill areas thereof, even after the reorganisation of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) Consequent upon the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and the creation of the successor State of Uttarakhand w.e.f. 9.11.2000, the petitioner has continued to render services in the successor State of Uttarakhand. It is pointed out that the petitioner belongs to a "scheduled tribe" and is a "domicile" of areas falling in the successor State of Uttarakhand. It is further pointed out that at all junctures, the petitioner submitted his option for allocation to the successor State of Uttarakhand. It is the case of the petitioner that when the tentative allocation order was issued assigning the petitioner to the successor State of Uttar Pradesh, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. However, the said writ petition was rendered infructuous consequent upon the issuance of the final allocation order.

(3.) In the final allocation order also, which was issued on 31.7.2008, the petitioner was shown to have been allocated to the successor State of Uttar Pradesh. This action at the hands of the authorities has been assailed by the petitioner through the present writ petition (after the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed by him claiming allocation to the successor State of Uttarakhand) on the basis of the Government of India order dated 11.9.2001, as also, the guidelines issued by the Reorganisation Committee constituted under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, more particularly the guidelines depicted on pages 78, 84 and 89 of the instant paper book. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Government of India order dated 28.7.2008. Based on the aforesaid Government Orders and guidelines, as also, the fact that there were vacant posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, in the successor State of Uttarakhand at the time of allocation, which have remained unfilled on account of option of lesser number of officers to the State of Uttarakhand. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the final allocation order passed by the authorities is clearly arbitrary being in violation of the guidelines, as also, the Government orders issued from time to time.