VYAS SHARMA Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner of CWJC No. 1339 of 2006 (Vyas Shyarma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 18.04.2006, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Central Government allocating the petitioner to the newly-created State of Jharkhand, consequent upon bifurcation of the undivided State of Bihar was, upheld.

(2.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The undivided State of Bihar was, in view of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganization Act,2000, bifurcated, and the present State of Jharkhand was carved out as a separate State. The question thereafter arose for allocation of the existing personnel between the two States. The Central Government constituted a Committee, known as the State Advisory Committee, to examine these issues which submitted its report to the Central Government. The appellant opted for the present State of Bihar, whereas respondent no.4 opted for the State of Jharkhand. Respondent no.2 prepared a tentative list of allocation of employees of the two States. According to his option, the appellant was allocated to Bihar, whereas respondent no.4 was allocated to the State of Jharkhand as per his choice. As per the established procedure, the parties were required to submit their representation(s), if they were aggrieved by the tentative allocation. Respondent no.4 submitted a representation changing his option which was accepted and he has been allocated to the State of Bihar to the detriment of the petitioner(appellant), who was instead allocated to the State of Jharkhand contrary to his option, leading to the writ petition. The same has been dismissed.

(3.) It appears to us that the representation of respondent no.4 was perhaps not maintainable, because he had been assigned the State as per his option. He could not, therefore, have any grievance. Law is well- settled that no person can maintain a lis, or prefer an appeal, if he has no cause of action. In that view of the matter, it prima facie appears that alteration in allocation of respondent no.4, as well as the appellant, was perhaps impermissible.