INDRADEO PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY impugned notification dated 24th February, 2005, in exercise of power conferred by Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, the Central Government allocated successor State of Bihar to the petitioner.

(2.) IN pursuance of the said notification, petitioner has been relieved by impugned notification dated 10th May, 2005 to join services in the State of Bihar. The aforesaid order, allocating the State of Bihar and relieving order have been challenged on one of the grounds that the respondents have not passed any order on the objection preferred by the petitioner nor noticed the option as was given by him. It is alleged that without application of mind and taking into consideration the post which petitioner was holding and the order of promotion, the impugned order of allocation has been issued.

(3.) THERE is no guideline brought on the record to suggest that each objection to be disposed of by reasoned order. Thereby, the petitioner cannot claim that a reasoned rejection order is required to be issued. 2003 (4) JCR 165. 6. Having noticed such submissions, the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the order of allocation and it was observed that even if there is some infirmity, the Court should not interfere with such order of allocation of States. 7. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench in the case of Priya Barata Narain Singh v. The Union of India and Ors. 8. So far -as status of petitioner is concerned, if he has been wrongly shown as Deputy Director (Mines), but actually has been promoted by the State of Bihar as Additional Director, it will be open to him to bring the matter to the notice of the Competent Authority at the time of his posting. But that cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of allocation. 9. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.