2007 Supreme(SC) 1006

2007(5) Supreme 623
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Indradeo Paswan — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3307 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16831 of 2006)
Decided on : 27-07-2007

Important Point
When the Advisory Committee considered all aspects as per norms and allocated the cadre to the appellant as per procedures no interference is warranted.

Headnote:Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 – Section 72 (2) – There being only one post of Director of Mines in the entire service in the undivided State of Bihar as on the appointed day that post had to be allocated to the reorganized State of Bihar – Appellant, a native of a part of the reorganized State of Bihar, was the senior-most person in the cadre of Deputy Director (Mines) on the appointed day and since nobody occupied the promotional post of Additional Director (Mines) or the Director of Mines as on that day, the appellant had to be allocated to the reorganized State of Bihar so that he could aspire to get and get his due promotion as the Director of Mines – In view of this position, the occasion for entertaining the option of the appellant did not arise – Therefore the option of the appellant could not be accepted in the circumstances of the case – Nothing unfair was done by such allocation. (Paras 5, 10 and 11)

       2003 (4) J.C.R. 165; (1989) 1 S.C.C. 285; (1973) 1 S.C.C. 61; (1975) 4 S.C.C. 203 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case :

       The appellant was appointed initially as a District Mining Officer in the State of Bihar on 21.6.1983. On 21.3.1993, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Mines) in the State of Bihar. According to him, on 6.3.1997, he was appointed on officiating basis as Additional Director (Mines). It is the further case of the appellant that the Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 2.6.1998 and had recommended the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Additional Director (Mines).The High Court issued a direction to consider the case of the appellant for promotion within a period of three weeks from the date of the judgment. Meanwhile, the State of Bihar was reorganized under the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. The Central Government on 6.11.2000 provisionally allocated the services of the appellant to the State of Jharkhand as Additional Director (Mines). According to the appellant, he took charge of the post of Additional Director (Mines) in the State of Jharkhand on 14.11.2000.

       The appellant gave his option indicating that he would like to be allocated to the State of Jharkhand.The appellant was allocated to the State of Bihar and was shown at No. 1 in the seniority list of his Department. After the publication of the tentative allocation list dated 8.8.2001, the State Advisory Committee called for objections thereto. The appellant submitted an objection dated 3.10.2002 reiterating his preference to be allocated to the State of Jharkhand.

       Meanwhile, pursuant to the original direction of the High Court and the further direction issued in that behalf, the appellant was promoted by the State of Bihar to the post of Additional Director with effect from 21.6.1997. In the final allocation list, the appellant was finally allocated to the reorganized State of Bihar not accepting the option exercised by him. Pursuant to this allocation of the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand relieved the appellant with effect from 10.5.2005. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2006 in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi challenging the order dated 24.2.2005 allocating the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar. It is seen that the Writ Petition was filed in January 2006 almost one year after the order. The High Court, by judgment dated 31.1.2006, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the basis that no adequate ground was made out to interfere with the allocation of the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar in the cadre division. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, presumably directed the State Advisory Committee concerned with the cadre division, to file an affidavit in answer to the Writ Petition at the appellate stage. Such an affidavit was filed. Thereafter, considering the relevant aspects, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant finding no reason to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge or with the allocation of the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar itself.

       Findings of the Court :

       Nothing unfair was done by allocation of the appellant to the State of Bihar.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.