ASHUTOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is under challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners had impugned before the Tribunal the notification dated 11.6.2001 which, in supersession of the earlier notification dated 14.11.2000, has altered the allocation of the petitioners and the private respondents between Jharkhand and Bihar Cadres of the Indian Forest Service. As per notification dated 14.11.2000, the petitioners had been allocated Jharkhand, as per the subsequent impugned notification dated 11.6.2001, this allocation was reversed and whereas the private respondents were allocated Jharkhand cadre (they, as per the notification dated 14.11.2000 had been earlier allocated to Bihar cadre), the petitioners cadre was changed from Jharkhand to Bihar.

(2.) THE State of Jharkhand came into being by virtue of Section 3 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000. Provisions relating to the "service" have been dealt with in part -VIII of the said Act. Section 71 "of the Act relates to All India Services and in pursuance of the prescriptions and the mandate contained in Section 71 of the said Act, the Central Govt. while exercising power and authority under this section formulated some guidelines and prepared a scheme for allocation of the Officers belonging to the erstwhile Bihar Cadre to Jharkhand Cadre. In this connection, we may refer to the "Records of discussions" in the meetings of the Advisory Committee constituted under the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000 which is popularly known as the U.C. Agarwal Committee.

(3.) ONE single event brought about a dramatic change a little later. As explained above, the aforesaid arrangement was with respect to Direct Recruit Outsiders belonging to General Cadre. One Officer by the name of S.B. Gayakwad belonged to S.C. category. Wrongly and erroneously his name was included in the aforesaid arrangement. This mistake having been detected, after the issuance of the Notification dated 14.11.2000. Roster Blocks of 4 -Officers each were prepared afresh minus the name of Gayakwad this time. Roster Blocks thus, prepared minus one name, the entire placing -position in the Roster Blocks got altered. All of the petitioners who had not found place at sl. No. 3 in any of the Roster Blocks, by the altered situation, found themselves pushed up at Sl. No. 3 in every Roster Block. This indeed was very unfortunate for them, but all this happened because of the mistake of earlier including Gayakwad wrongly in the General Category, whereas he actually belonged to S.C. category. By this subsequent rectification of error and the consequential alteration in the Roster Block position of the Petitioners, all of them, found themselves at Sl. No. 3 in every Roster Block: thus, following the guidelines and the adoption of the accepted formula as per U.C. Agarwal. Committee Report they were retained in Bihar and the private respondents who also by the quirk of fate, by this unexpected bounty of exclusion of Gayakwad. had their positions in the Roster Blocks altered and since none of them this time figured at Sl. No. 3 in any of their respective Roster Blocks, they were allocated Jharkhand Cadre. It is in this background that the reversal in the fortunes of the petitioners and the private respondents took place. It is in this factual backdrop that the Cadre allocations got entirely reversed between the petitioners and the Private respondents. But all this was done strictly in accordance with the guidelines and the adoption formula. Only because of a mistake earlier committed, the composition of the Roster Blocks got changed.