VIKRAM SINGH GAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 94 of 2001 (R) and O.A. No. 95 of 2001 (R) whereby the Petitioners' applications have been dismissed. Both the Petitioners submitted above O. As to challenge the reallocation of the cadre pursuant to the bifurcation of the Cadre of Indian Forest Service of the erstwhile Bihar Cadre consequent to reorganization of the State of Bihar and creation of State of Jharkhand by which ultimately Petitioners have been allocated Bihar Cadre whereas the Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur's contention is that he had opted for the Jharkhand Cadre and was eligible for allotment of the Jharkhand Cadre and had the option of the Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur reached to the Union of India, which had not been sent inadvertently by the State of Bihar, the Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur would have been given the Jharkhand Cadre. Whereas the Petitioner Kirti Singh had opted for Jharkhand Cadre but inadvertently his option was shown as opted for Bihar Cadre.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner, in W.P.(S) No. 251 of 2002 Vikram Singh Gaur, an officer of the rank of Indian Forest Service and who was in the Bihar Cadre initially in unified State of Bihar, was asked to give his option in view of the creation of the State of Jharkhand by enacting the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 for which a letter was issued by the Government of Bihar on 13.09.2000 inviting option from the members of All India Civil Services of Bihar Cader so as to know their choice of the State where they can be, if possible, adjusted by giving the proper allocations of the Cadre in the States either in Bihar or in new State Jharkhand where they could have been accommodated. As per communication (Annexure1/1) dated 13.09.2000, the willing persons were required to give their option by 18.09.2000. The Petitioner's (Vikram Singh Gaur) contention is that he submitted his option letter (Annexure3) which was duly received by the competent officer in the State of Bihar on 30.09.2000 but inadvertently it was not sent to the Cenral Government. The State of Bihar also forwarded a list of the officers along with forwarding letter Annexure4 dated 03.10.2000 to the Central Government and name of the Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6005 of 2001 Kirti Singh has been shown at Sl. No. 69 whereas writ Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 251 of 2002 Vikram Singh Gaur's name has been shown at Sl. No. 79. The writ Petitioner Kirti Singh was shown to have opted for Bihar Cadre and according to him, in fact he had opted for Jharkhand Cadre but inadvertently it has been mentioned that said Petitioner Kirti Singh has opted for Bihar Cadre. So far as writ Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur is concerned, against his name it has been mentioned that no option received from Vikram Singh Gaur whereas according to the Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur, he submitted his option which was duly received by the State Government opting for State of Jharkhand but again by mistake, in the list it has been mentioned that no option form received. In the same list (Annexure4), name of the Respondent No. 5 in W.P.(S) No. 251 of 2002 Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey is at Sl. No. 80 against whose name option has been shown as for Jharkhand which too was wrong as Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey gave his option for Bihar. The Petitioner's further contention is that he had opted in time for Jharkhand Cadre which is further apparent from the communication sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of the Forest, sent to the Government of Bihar vide letter dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure5). The relevant portion of the register wherein there is entry of receipt of the said letter dated 24.10.2000 by the Government of Bihar is also placed on record as Annexure6. However, according to the Petitioner, firstly, option form was not sent to the Central Government by the State of Bihar and secondly, in the list of the officers sent by the State of Bihar to the Government of India showing their option, by mistake option of the Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur was not shown and option of Kirti Singh was wrongly shown. The Union of India, believing that Petitioner Vikram Singh Gaur did not submit option form and believing that another Petitioner Kirti Singh as well as Respondent A.K. Pandey both submitted option for Bihar while distributing the Cadre in the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar, wrongly allocated Bihar Cadre to both the Petitioners Kirti Singh and Vikram Singh Gaur vide notification dated 14.11.2000 and Jharkhand to A.K. Pandey.

(3.) Further More, there was one officer S.B. Gaikwad who was member of Schedule Caste but inadvertently his name was included in the list of general category candidates and, therefore, because of that reason also some representation was submitted to the Government of India upon which the Government of India accepted the representation and placed S.P. Gaikwad in the block of the members of Schedule Caste resulting into changes because of which also the position of these two Petitioners Vikram Singh Gaur and Kirti Singh changed to their disadvantages and they were wrongly allocated Bihar Cadre but that mistake was corrected upon receiving of representation by the Central Government.