The Court

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is directed against the judgment dated 7th August, 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a group of two writ applications (CWJC No. 2202 of 2001 and W.P.(s) 2692 of 2001 reported in 2001 (3) JCR 155) whereby the learned Single Judge by holding and declar-ing that the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the respondent-writ petitioners, has quashed and set aside the impugned order of suspension passed by the Government of Bihar, but by giving liberty to the State of Jharkhand to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. if it so chooses.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Both the respondent- petitioners after 15.11.2000 were admittedly posted in the territories which, from that date, form a part of the State of Jharkhand. Even though they were serving in such territories forming part of the State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar passed order dated 20.5.2001 (In CWJC No. 2202 of 2001) and order dated 5.5.2001 (in WP(s) No. 2692 of 2001) whereby the writ petitioner- respondents in the aforesaid two writ petitions were suspended by the State of Bihar in contemplation of the initiation of departmental proceedings against them. On the ground of lack of jurisdiction and competency, the two writ petitioners challenged the aforesaid suspension orders passed by the State of Bihar in the aforesaid writ application and, as noticed at the very outset, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ applications and holding that the State of Bihar had no jurisdiction to pass such an order or to initiate the departmental proceedings, set aside and quashed the impugned suspension orders.

3. The Parliament has enacted Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000. The preamble of the Act states that it was being enacted to provide for the re-organisation of the existing State of Bihar and for matters connected therewith. The "existing State of Bihar" has been defined in Section 2 of the Act to mean the State of Bihar as existisg immediately before the appointed day. "Appointed day" has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean the day which the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint. It is an undisputed fact that 15.11.2000 was the day appointed by the Central Government in terms of the aforesaid provision and it is on this day, by virtue of Section 3 of the Act that the new State of Jharkhand (comprising the territories mentioned in that section) came into existence. As is well known, the new State of Jharkhand which was formed on and from the appointed day (15.11.2000) was carved out of the existing State of Bihar. Section 4 of the Act, therefore, consequentially stipulated that on and from the appointed day the State of Bihar shall comprise of the territories of the existing State of Bihar minus the territories which would now form part of the new State of Jharkhand.

4. Part-VIII of the Act deals with matters relating to Services. Section 71 contains provisions regarding the All India Services with which we are not concerned in this Case. Admittedly, both the writ petitioners do not belong to any All India Service. In this case, we are concerned with Sections 72 and 74 of the Act. These two Sections read thus :

"72. Provisions relating to services in Bihar and Jharkhand.--(1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in con nection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand.

Provided that no direction shall be issued under this section after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day.

(2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general