GURU SOREN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two petitioners, who are said to be in the services of Home Guards as Washer Man and Constable respectively, have been allocated to the successor State of Bihar vide impugned notification dated 05.01.2005, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.

(2.) By and large from the pleadings made on behalf of the writ petitioners and supporting annexures, the petitioners have inter alia tried to make out a case that:--

(3.) The answer to each of these contentions are found in specific manner in the affidavit of the respondent No. 7, which is State Advisory Committee. On the first ground, the respondents have taken a categorical stand at para-18 that the Administrative Department had reported the name of the petitioners showing their options as "not received". The State Advisory Committee has to go by the information furnished by the department. The affidavit of the said respondent at para-9 lays down the summery of the salient features of the principles and procedures, as settled by the committee consisting representative of Government of India along with representatives of successor States for allocation of the employees of the erstwhile State of Bihar to either of the Successor State. A perusal of the same indicates that the Committee called for a detailed statement of sanctioned posts of various employees from the concerned Administrative Department of the Government of Bihar along with Bio-data of the personnel as existing on the appointed date i.e. 15.11.2000. Options for allocation to the preferred State were invited from State level employees through their Administrative Department and also by publicity through newspaper advertisements.