PARAS NATH SINGH Vs. G C KEWALREMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the orders dated 11-12-2006 and 8-1-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 10342/2005 (S) and MCC No. 4/2007.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that respondent No. 1 was working as a Joint registrar, Co-operative Societies, in the State of Madhya Pradesh when the state of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated to Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh by the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act' ). Under section 68 of the Act, every person who immediately before the appointed day was serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Madhya pradesh was to continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of madhya Pradesh unless by general or special order of the Central Government he was finally allotted to the State of Madhya Pradesh or to the State of chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 1 was allotted to the State of Chhattisgarh and was relieved to join in the State of Chhattisgarh as Joint Registrar, Firms and societies by memo dated 22-12-2004. Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition no. 10342/2005 (S) contending, inter alia, that the State of Chhattisgarh had informed the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Co-operative Department that as against 8 posts of Joint Registrar and 14 posts of Dy. Registrar, it requires 6 posts of Joint Registrar and 18 posts of Dy. Registrar and that in the six posts of joint Registrar, six officers have already given their option for the State of chhattisgarh and, therefore, steps should be taken by the Lohani Committee and the Central Government for allocation of two Joint Registrars including respondent No. 1 to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The contention of petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is that since the requirement of Chhattisgarh State was only six Joint Registrars and six Joint Registrars had already been allotted to the State of Chhattisgarh on the basis of their option given for the State of Chhattisgarh, the order allotting respondent No. 1 to the state of Madhya Pradesh should be quashed and respondent No. 1 should be allowed to continue in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge upheld the aforesaid contention of respondent No. 1 and further held that when both the States have agreed that respondent No. 1 be retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh and was also seeking cancellation of allocation of respondent No. 1 to the State of chhattisgarh for the reason that the post for which respondent No. 1 was sought to be allocated has already been filled up, the allocation order of respondent no. 1 deserves to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed the order dated 5-9-2002 allocated respondent No. 1 to the State of Chhattisgarh and directed that respondent No. 1 shall be allowed to continue in the State of Madhya pradesh by the impugned order dated 11-12-2006.