JYOTI KALASH, I.A.S.SON OF DR.R.N.SRIVASTAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar.

(2.) The writ petitioner seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 21.8.1998 whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has dismissed O.A. No. 426 of 1995, preferred by the petitioner on merits as well as on the ground of jurisdiction.

(3.) The relevant facts for deciding the present writ petition lie within a narrow compass. Petitioner got selected and appointed to Indian Administrative Service in the year 1990. While undergoing training at Masoori he was informed that he has been allocated to Nagaland cadre. According to the petitioner the concerned authorities of Union of India failed to apply the relevant roster system properly otherwise he would have been allocated Orissa cadre. He preferred O.A. No. 159 of 1991 in Gauhati Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal which had jurisdiction because petitioner was allocated to Nagaland cadre. The Gauhati Bench on 12.11.1991 directed the Union of India to transfer the petitioner for joining Orissa cadre and district training. The Orissa Govt. did not allow the petitioner to undergo district training on the ground of there being no vacancy at that time. During the pendency of the said O.A. one I.A.S. officer of the Bihar cadre was transferred to Orissa cadre and on that basis and considering that the State of Bihar had no objection to petitioner's transfer to Sate of Bihar, O.A. No.159 of 1991 was allowed on 18.6.1993 with a direction to transfer the petitioner to Bihar cadre. The Union of India preferred Special Leave Petition bearing No.8454 of 1993 in which leave was granted on 6th March, 1995 and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench was set aside on a short ground that the appeal had to be allowed in terms of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India V/s. Rajiv Yadav and Others, 1994 6 SCC 38. A submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Apex Court that allocation of the petitioner was not in accordance with the roster as required in terms of law laid down in Rajiv Yadav's case. After noticing such submission it was observed that petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum to have his grievance vindicated.