The abolition of permanent posts is a matter of policy decision and not violative of constitutional mandate.

1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the relevant proposition of law and the case relied on by learned Counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion, that the appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold on the following grounds. Therefore, let there be a few material relevant facts with a view to examine the merits of the issue involved in this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.8.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 11776 of 2004:

(i) Petitioner No. 1- Association has challenged the notification of the State Government dated 1.9.2004, whereby and whereunder, certain post of Flying Squad came to be abolished, a copy of the order is produced at Annexure 2.

(ii) It was questioned before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

2. The main contention of learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Siya Ram Shahi has been that:

(a) the abolition of permanent post is contrary to the provision of law, particularly, Art. 309 of the Constitution of India,

(b) for that he has further submitted that the decision was taken by the Secretary and not by the Government, and

(c) that the provisions of sec. 73 read with sec. 72 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 have not be observed.

3. We have considered the entire record and relevant legal and factual profile. We find that all the three contentions are meritless. It is very clear from the record that the decision to abolish the post was taken by the State of Bihar at the time of Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. It is not the proposition of law that permanent post can never be abolished. It is a matter of a policy decision. If a competent authority takes a decision to abolish a permanent post it cannot be said violative of constitutional mandate. Again, there is no violation of Sec. 73 of the aforesaid Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. sec. 73 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 reads hereunder as:

73. Other provisions relating to Services- (1) Nothing in sec. 72 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part VIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State: Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand u/s. 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.

(2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person- (a) if he is deemed to have been allocated to any State u/s. 72, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of that State;

(b) if he is deemed to have been allocated to the Union in connection with the administration of the Jharkhand shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the Union,

for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service.

(3) The provisions of sec. 72, shall not apply in relation to members of any All India Service.

4. It pertains to other provisions relating to services. Before that is Part VIII of the Act which deals with the provision as to services. sec. 71 makes a provision relating to All India Services, whereas, sec. 72 of the Act makes provisions relating to services in Bihar and Jharkhand. There is no dispute about the fact that the Central Government at the time of reorganisation of Bihar into Bihar and Jharkhank had constituted an Advisory Committee. The Central Government is the final deciding authority and is competent to take assistance from the State in the matter. Judicial review is, also, limited