Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as .Junior Engineer in the State of Bihar on 30.4.1983. In spite of rendering services to the satisfaction of the authorities, when the petitioner was not promoted to the higher post, he moved an application before this Court, vide W.P.(C) No. 3538 of 2002 for a direction 10 the respondents-authority to consider the case of promotion of the •petitioner. In that case, it was placed before this Court that a decision is to be taken by the State of Bihar with the consent of the State of Jharkhand, as the cadre has not been bifurcated. The case was disposed of directing the Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Jharkhand to take a decision on the request letter dated 13.2.2002 received from the Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar relating to promotion of the petitioner and others.

2. Pursuant to that, concurrence was given by the State of Jharkhand for taking decision in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. Upon which vigilance clearance was taken from the Bihar Public Service Commission and only on that basis, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer vide Notification No. 9205 dated 11 .12.2002 by the State of Bihar. Thereupon, the petitioner started discharging his duty on the promoted post in the territory of State of Jharkhand but all on a sudden, the respondents came with an order dated 4.9.2010, as contained in Annexure-6, whereby the promotion given to the petitioner earlier by the State of Bihar was cancelled on the ground that on the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000, quota, meant for Scheduled Castes to the extent of 10%, was full and as such, no vacancy has been existing against the Scheduled Caste category. The said order has been challenged to be bad.

3. Learned counsel further submits that from a Circular, issued by the Central Government, it is evident that the cadre Controlling Authority in respect of officers provisionally posted in the State of Jharkhand would be the State of Bihar until final allocation is made and further the clarificatory order, as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, stipulates that the State of Bihar is competent to take decision in the matter of promotion to the extent of 60% of the total vacancy, which falls to the share of the State of Bihar and thus, this clarificatory order fully establishes that the State of Bihar was the Competent Authority to take decision in the matter of promotion after seeking consent from the State of Jharkhand which had already been given by the State of Jharkhand and under that situation, it was not within the competence of the State of Jharkhand to withdraw that order under which promotion was given to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submits that on other ground also, the order under which promotion was given to the petitioner, cannot be cancelled or withdrawn in view of the provision, as contained in proviso to Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, stipulating therein that the service conditions of the persons applicable immediately before the appointed day shall not be varied to their disadvantage except with the previous approval with the Central Government and, therefore, the order, as has been passed under Annexure6, is certainly disadvantageous to the interest of the petitioner and hence, the same cannot be passed by the State of Jharkhand without having approval of the Central Government and on this count also, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

5. As against this, Mr. D.K. Dubey, G.P.-I, submits that it is true that while the petitioner was serving in the State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar on account of non-division of the cadre took a decision to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer but that promotion was provisional and it was subject to certain conditions stipulated in a letter bearing No. 1079 dated 28.2.2004 issued by the Personnel