BHUWANESHWAR YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE service of the petitioner, who at the material time was posted as a Routine Clerk in the Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, is allocated to the State of Jharkhand, following the division of cadre as a result of bifurcation of the State. It is an admitted position that the State Advisory Committee made recommendation for allocation of his service to Jharkhand on the basis that he belonged to the backward category for reservation of posts. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that it was wrong to allocate his service to Jharkhand on that basis because his appointment was made against a post in the unreserved category.

(2.) THE facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner was appointed on 4.11.1981 as Orderly Peon in the Revenue & Land Reforms Department. On 28.6.1989 he was appointed as Rountine Clerk on the basis of a limited competitive examination against the quota reserved to be filled up from eligible Class IV employees. Following the selection, he was posted as Routine Clerk in the Water Resources Department by allocation notice issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms under memo no. 8437, dated 28.6.1989 (Annexure 2). In the allocation notice the name of the petitioner is at serial no. 2 and it is evident that though he belonged to reserved category 5, his appointment was made on an unreserved post. Later, in modification of the earlier allocation notice, by memo, dated 10.8.1989 (Annexure 3) the petitioner was posted as Routine Clerk in the Revenue & Land Reforms Department. He was working there till his services were allocated to the newly created State of Jharkhand.

(3.) COMING then to the case of the petitioner it was stated that the total sanctioned strength and working strength of Routine Clerk, as reported by the Administrative Department, was eighteen (18) which was apportioned as 12:6 between Bihar and Jharkhand, following the ratio 2:1. The total working strength in BC was five which was apportioned as three to Bihar and two to Jharkhand, following the same principle. All the five employees had opted for Bihar and their home districts were also in Bihar. So, the three seniors were allocated to Bihar as per their option while the two juniors were allocated to Jharkhand against their option, in accordance with the principles of allocation. The cut off point for Bihar allocation was at serial no. 8 in the gradation list. The petitioner who was at serial no. 11, thus, fell into the second category and was allocated to Jharkhand against his option. It was further stated that on receipt of the petitioner 's representation against the tentative final alllocation list, the Committee called for the comments from the Administive Department that confirmed that he was a member of backward category. In light of the report of the Administrative Department the Committee in its meeting of 12.9.2005 found and held that there was no case for change in the petitioner 'sallocation of service.