MITHILESH NARAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. J.P. Shukla Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey representing the State Advisory Committee, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Govt. Pleader No. XV appearing for the State of Bihar and Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee appearing for the State of Jharkhand.

(2.) AS a result of cadre division, following the bifurcation of the State, the service of the petitioner, who worked as Rajbhasha Sahayak Grade II in the Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Bihar, is allocated to the new State of Jharkhand. He is aggrieved by the allocation of his service to Jharkhand and seeks to challenge the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee and the decision of the Central Government based on it. According to the petitioner, in his place, another employee/other employees should have been sent to Jharkhand on the basis of his/their caste(s) alone and notwithstanding the fact that the other employee(s) too like the petitioner was appointed on unreserved post(s).

(3.) JAGANNATH Choudhary 1975