S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are of vital public importance, in as much as these relate to the status of every person, who immediately before reorganisation was serving in connection of the existing State, of Bihar and the powers of the successor-State of Bihar and Jharkhand, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The petitioner, Arvind Vijay Bilung of CWJC No. 2202/2001, a member of State. Education Service, was posted at Jehanabad (now in the present State of Bihar) between 1996-98. Since October 16th, 1998, he was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Chatra (now in the State of Jharkhand).

3. The other petitioner, V.N. Mishra of WP (S) No. 2692/2001, a member of State Forest Service, was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division, Gumla (now in the State of Jharkhand). Subsequently, he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Minor Forest Material Project Division, Jamshedpur (now in the State of Jharkhand).

4. At that stage the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Central Act, No. 30 of 2000), hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2000", was enacted which became operative from November 15, 2000, referred to in the Act 2000 as the appointed day, and by virtue of its provisions and under its terms, both the petitioners continued to hold, the posts and offices, at the same place, within the State of Jharkhand.

5. While so functioning, the present State of Bihar from Education Department issued impugned notification No. 371, dated May 20, 2001 suspending the petitioner, Arvind Vijay Bilung in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. By another notification No. 1287, dated May 5, 2001, issued by the present State of Bihar from Forest and Environment Department, the petitioner V.N. Mishra was also suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding.

6. In the present case, the petitioners while challenged their respective notification of suspension raised the question of jurisdiction of the present State of Bihar to suspend them, having posted within the State of Jharkhand.

7. The sole question raised and to be determined as to which of the State, the present State of Bihar or Jharkhand has jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action including suspension, in respect to a person posted within the State of Jharkhand ?

8. Admittedly, the cadre of State Education Service (known as Bihar Education Service) and the State Forest Service (known as Bihar Forest Service), of which petitioners are respective members, have not yet been bifurcated. No notification has been issued by the Central Government allotting the services of the members of aforesaid two services, even provisionally.

9. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar relied on Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act, 2000, to suggest that the present State of Bihar is the disciplinary authority in respect to the Government employees, who have not been allotted to serve the State of Jharkhand. It was also submitted that no general or special order of allotment to serve the State of Jharkhand having issued in respect to the petitioners under Section 72. they are provisionally continuing to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar. The State of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action for the present.

10. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, relied upon Section 71 of Reorganisation Act, 2000. According to him, the State of Jharkhand being deemed to be the appointing authority is competent to take disciplinary action against a person h6lding post and office in the State of Jharkhand.

11. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel on the request of the Court assisted as amicus auriae relied on certain provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, as also the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "Reorganisation Act, 1956", for short, some of the provisions being almost same and similar.

12