IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1728 of 2009
Ram Janam Vidyakar ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
5. Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
6. Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Neelanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand : J.C. to A.G.
For the State of Bihar : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
---------
th
03/ Dated: 19 May, 2010
1. The present petition has been preferred for the reason that the petitioner
wants to remain in the State of Jharkhand after cadre bifurcation. Initially, the
petitioner was serving in the erstwhile State of Bihar and after bifurcation of the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand, the services of the petitioner have been
allotted to the State of Bihar in April 2005. Looking to the Annexure-1, it
appears that the petitioner’s services were allotted to the State of Bihar.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that now a policy
has been floated by the Union of India that if both the States are giving consent
then cadre allotment can be changed from the State of Jharkhand to the State of
Bihar vice versa, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for
allotment of cadre in the State of Jharkhand.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of
Jharkhand, who has submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact
to this Court. Initially, W.P. (S) No. 727 of 2006 was preferred by the petitioner,
wherein, allocation of cadre was under challenge, which was dismissed on 21st
April, 2006. Neither this petition is referred in the memo of petition nor the
order is annexed with the memo of petition. Therefore, with the counter
affidavit at Annexure-D, the said order is annexed by the respondents. Thus, the
earlier writ petition for the allotment of cadre of the present petitioner was
dismissed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-State of
Jharkhand that one more writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 3342 of 2007 was
preferred for the very same purpose by the petitioner and ultimately it was
2
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11th June, 2008. Thus, the present writ
petition is a third writ petition, preferred before this Court by the petitioner. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand that
over and above the aforesaid writ petitions, there is one more petition, which the
petitioner and such other persons have preferred before the Hon’ble High Court
at Delhi and, thereafter, they had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way
of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which
was also dismissed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent-State of Jharkhand that there is no legitimate right vested in the
petitioner, as prayed for, nor there is any duty vested in the State of Jharkhand
for giving any permission for change of cadre of allotment to the State of
Jharkhand and, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Bihar submitted
that he adopts the arguments, canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent-
State of Jharkhand and he has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly for the
reason that though the service of the petitioner is allotted to the State of Bihar in
the year 2005, he has not joined the duty in the State of Bihar. There is no stay
against the State of Bihar and in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has
presumed the stay and continued with the State of Jharkhand, unilaterally. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar that in fact,
there is no public duty vested in the State of Bihar to grant permission for change
of the cadre to the present petitioner. In the aforesaid background of the
petitioner that he has filed one by one writ petitions and suppressing the material
fact to this Court, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition
mainly for the following facts and reasons:-
(i) The petitioner was working as District Welfare Officer before the
reorganization of the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand i.e. prior
to November 2000.
(ii) Upon Reorganization Act, 2000, the State of Bihar and the State of
Jharkhand have been reorganized and the services of the petitioner have
3
been allotted to the State of Bihar in April 2005 vide order at Annexure-1.
This order has been passed by the Central Government.
Despite this order, the petitioner has never resumed his duties in the State
of Bihar.
(iii) It appears that one petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court
at Delhi. Initially, some stay was granted for eight weeks and,
thereafter, the petition was dismissed. Thereafter, L.P.A. was dismissed.
Against which Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, which was also dismissed as stated in the counter
affidavit, filed by the State of Jharkhand especially in paragraph no. 14
thereof. It appears from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit that Letters
Patent Appeal, preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
(iv) It appears that there is gross suppression of the material fact by the
petitioner. One more writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 727 of 2006
was preferred by the petitioner before this Court, challenging the
allocation of cadre, which was never referred in the memo of petition,
but, in the counter affidavit the respondent-State of Jharkhand has
brought to the notice of this Court at Annexure-D to the counter
affidavit that an order was passed by this Court. The writ petition,
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 21st April,
2006. Thus, cadre of allocation to the State of Bihar was under
challenge i.e. order at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition and the writ
petition was dismissed by this Court.
(v) It further appears from the facts of the case that one more writ
petition was preferred by the petitioner before this Court bearing W.P.
(S) No. 3342 of 2007, which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 11th June, 2008. This order is at Annexure-G to the counter
affidavit. Thus, it appears that time and again, several petitions and
Letters Patent Appeal and Special Leave petition have been preferred one
by one for change of cadre allotment from the State of Bihar to the
State of Jharkhand.
(vi) Thus, it appears that despite the order by the Central Government in
April 2005 at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition, the petitioner has
never gone to the State of Bihar upto 2009 and now the petitioner is
seeking discretionary relief that he may be allotted the State of
4
Jharkhand in pursuance of the policy floated by the Union of India, which
is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. This argument is not
accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that one by one several
petitions have been preferred and dismissed. Even the latest petition,
which has been filed in the year 2007 i.e. after the aforesaid policy at
Annexure-2, has also been dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2008.
Looking to the policy at Annexure-2 , it appears that there is no public
duty vested in the respondents to change the cadre allotment of the
petitioner and consequently, there is no legitimate right vested in the
petitioner for getting permission for allotment of cadre from the State of
Bihar to the State of Jharkhand. Moreover, there is suppression of
material fact to this Court as stated hereinabove.
6. In these set of circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the
petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees
one thousand only). The petitioner will deposit Rs. 500/- to the State of
Jharkhand and Rs. 500/- to the State of Bihar, within a period of eight weeks
from today, failing which, it will be deducted by the respondent-State from
salary of the petitioner.
(D.N. Patel, J)
Ajay/