VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, the State Advisory Committee and the State of Bihar.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the final allocation of their services to the State of Jharkhand, consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar. The issues are common in all the three writ applications except for an additional issue urged in CWJC No. 8257 of 2008 which this Court shall consider separately. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had exercised their option to remain in the State of Bihar. A tentative allocation list of cadre was prepared retaining them in the State of Bihar. This cadre allocation was done on the basis of tentative seniority list existing on the cut -off date i.e. 15.11.2000. Subsequently, a final seniority list was prepared in July, 2005, where the seniority position of the petitioners were altered to their prejudice resulting in their final allocation to the State of Jharkhand. That this final seniority list was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition before this Court in which there were certain orders of status quo. In terms of Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act (hereinafter called 'the Reorganization Act '), the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day while acting for the purpose of allocation of cadres under Section 72 of the Act could not be varied to the disadvantage of the Government servant except with the approval of the Central Government. Changing the seniority position of the petitioners in July, 2005 after the cut -off date and allotting them the State of Jharkhand on that basis amounted to change their service conditions different from the appointed day, which was not permissible. In so far as CWJC No. 8257 of 2008 is concerned, the additional submission was that the petitioner having opted for the State of Bihar, his name figured in the list of persons allocated to the State of Bihar in the tentative list. There was no occasion for him to file any further objection against any tentative allocation. To treat him as a case of no option in the final allocation was an illegality.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State Advisory Committee and the State of Bihar supported the final allocation done in 2008 to submit that it was in accordance with the policy guidelines. No issue with regard to any other violation of the policy guidelines had been urged by the petitioners. Mere option did not create a legal right.