IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3089 of 2007
Ajay Kumar, SON OF LATE CHANDRADEEP PRASAD, RESIDENT
OF MOHALLA NAYA BAZAR, MAHAVIR ASTHAN, P.S. BANK
MORE DHANBAD, DISTRICT- DHANBAD (JHARKHAND) :--
PETITIONER.
Versus
1. The Union Of India THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NEW DELHI-1.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SINCHAI
AVAS, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.
3. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE STATE TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
VISWASWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.
4. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CHIEF
SECRETARY, RANCHI :---RESPONDENTS.
----------------------------------
For the petitioner :- Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhya, Advocate.
For the Union of India :- Mr. P.L. Jaiswal (C.G.C.)
For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Awadhesh Kumar (A.C. to S.C. 17)
For the State of Jharkhand:- Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate.
=====
3. 13.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the Union of India.
2. At the relevant time petitioner served as
Motor Vehicle Inspector in the bifurcated State of
Bihar. He has filed this writ petition questioning the
order of the State Advisory Committee bearing Memo
No. 700 dated 18.12.2006, Annexure-1, whereunder in
compliance of the order of the High Court dated
11.9.2006 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by
the writ petitioner bearing C.W.J.C.No. 14544 of 2004
cadre of the petitioner has been finally allocated in the
bifurcated State of Bihar ignoring his option for
allocating Jharkhand as the cadre for the reason that
his home district is in the State of Jharkhand. In this
connection learned counsel for the petitioner has
2
referred to Paragraph 7.6 of the minutes of the State
Advisory Committee dated 31.10.2001, Annexure-2,
whereunder it was resolved to consider the case of all
the reserved category except S.T. for allocation of cadre
together. Reference in this connection has also been
made to Paragraph 7 (g) (i) of the earlier counter
affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary of the State
Advisory Committee, Bihar, Patna in the earlier writ
petition filed by the petitioner which is quoted
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“(i). The quota of personnel that remains
available for each state if first filled up by those having
home district in that state and who have also exercised
option for that state.”
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that had the State Advisory Committee considered the
case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the minutes
paragraph 7.6 and the contents of Paragraph 7(g) (i) of
the counter affidavit petitioner ought not to have been
retained in the State of Bihar but allocated to
Jharkhand State. It is also submitted that while
allocating the cadre of others named in the petition the
instructions contained in paragraph 7.6 and the
contents of paragraph 7(g)(i) of the counter affidavit
was relied upon but the case of the petitioner for
reasons best known to the State Advisory Committee
was not considered in the light of the minutes and the
3
contents of the counter affidavit.
4. During the pendency of this writ petition
the State Advisory Committee has become defunct. In
the circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by
quashing the order of the State Advisory Committee,
which is subject to the final approval by the
Government of India. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that till date no order has been passed by the
competent authority of the Government of India finally
allocating the petitioner bifurcated State of Bihar as his
cadre. In such view of the matter, I grant liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the order bearing Memo No. 700
dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the
Chairman of the State Advisory Committee before the
competent authority of the Union of India i.e.
Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Respondent No. 1 herein. The challenge
made by the petitioner to the aforesaid order dated
18.12.2006, Annexure-1 be considered as expeditiously
as possible by the competent authority of the Union of
India, in any case within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the challenge.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed
of.
P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)