CHAUDHARY MAHMOOD AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

(2.) IN pursuance of the reorganization of the then Bihar State under Bihar Reor ganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), under section 72 of the Act, the appellant petitioner 'sservices were allotted to Jharkhand State. A tentative list was published inviting objection thereto. The appellant petitioner instead of submitting objection to the decision taken by the Union of India, submitted his option for retaining him in Bihar rather than sending him to Jharkhand cadre. This representation was not accepted, hence the petition was filed. The option in the form of representation was given for the first time in 2006 after six years of the reorganization of Bihar under which Jharkhand State was constituted.

(3.) THE petition was filed to challenge the petitioner 'sallotment to Jharkhand State, inter alia, on the ground that his option to remain in Bihar has not been considered before passing the final order.