ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioners for a direction on the 1st respondent and/or the State Advisory Committee to consider the objections, preferred by them against their tentative allocation in the cadre distribution. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, the Central Government issued Notification No. 6(B)/2004 dated 29th July, 2004, whereby and whereunder, in exercise of power, conferred under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act. 2000, the services of the petitioners along with others have been placed under the successor State of Bihar. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not followed the reservation policy, in its letter and spirit, at the time of allocation of cadre and State and the impugned notification has been issued in violation of the guidelines, issued by the Central Government, and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the backward categories. 4. The petitioners, who are Assistant Engineers in the Water Resources Department, claim to be the members of backward category. According to them, they were appointed after the year, 1987 as Assistant Engineers against the posts, reserved for backward category. The total strength of Assistant Engineers were to the distributed at the ratio of 2.36:1 to the State of Bihar and Jharkhand respectively and, accordingly, the working strength has been allocated. Out of total sanctioned strength of 2760, 1938 have been allocated to the State of Bihar and 822 post have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. Accordingly, the working strength has been divided in the same ratio of 2.36:1 and out of total 2529 working strength, 1776 members have been allocated to the successor State of Bihar and 753 have been allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand. According to the petitioners, out of 753 Assistant Engineers, who have been allocated the successor State of Jharkhand, the petitioners are concerned with regard to 141 number of Assistant Engineers, who have been allocated the State of Jharkhand against the posts, reserved for backward category. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of total number of 141 Assistant Engineers allocated to the State of Jharkhand against backward category quota, in fact, only 11 Assistant Engineers, actually belong to the said category, who were appointed against the backward category whereas 130 Assistant Engineers, out. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of total number of 141 Assistant Engineers allocated to the State of Jharkhand against backward category quota, in fact, only 11 Assistant Engineers, actually belong to the said category, who were appointed against the backward category whereas 130 Assistant Engineers, out. of the aforesaid 141, were not appointed against: backward category quota and, as such, they can not be termed as Backward Category Candidates. 6. At this stage, it is to be noticed as asked for and not disputed by the petitioners, that all the Assistant Engineers, who have been allocated successor State of Jharkhand against 141 posts of backward category, belong to backward category by caste. But according to the petitioners, out of 141 candidates, 130 Assistant Engineers, though may belong to backward category by caste, at initial stage, they having been appointed as Assistant Engineers against merit category i.e. against unreserved posts, they cannot be treated as backward category candidates for allocation of State against the posts, reserved for backward category. 7. Counsel for the petitioners in this regard relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education v. K.L. Narasimhan, , wherein, the Supreme Court has held that a person who is a backward, Dalit or Tribe but appointed to a post on the basis of merit against unreserved post/seat, can not be treated as a reserved category candidate. 8. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabbarbal v. State of Punjab, , wherein, it has been held that a person belonging to reserved category, if appointed on merit against unreserved post, can not be treated as reserved category candidate. Reliance was also placed on some other decisions of the Supreme Court on similar issue. 9. However, the aforesaid submission, made on behalf of the petitioners can not be accepted for the reasons, as recorded hereunder : The decisions of the Supreme Court, as referred to above, relate to admission in Medical College and appointment in the services of the State from amongst the reserved category candidates. In such case, Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India is attracted. In such case, Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India is attracted. If a person, belonging to a particular reserved category, is admitted/appointed on merit against unreserved seat/post, for all purposes he is to be treated as "Merit Category Candidate" and not Reserved Category Candidate. That means once a person is appointed on merit, he can not claim reservation in the matter of subsequent promotion to the next higher post. So far as reservation in the matter of promotion is concerned, it is permissible only in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India. There is no provision for reservation in the matter of promotion to higher post from amongst other Backward Category Candidates. In such a situation, after appointment, for the purposes of promotion to higher post, a person, who was appointed against a post, reserved for other backward category, is to be treated as a General Category Candidate for promotion etc. This is the position with respect to those other backward category candidates, if appointed on merit against unreserved post. They also can not claim reservation after their appointment. Thus, for all purposes, whether a person, belonging to other backward category, is appointed on merit against unreserved post or a person, belonging to other backward category, is appointed against a reserved post, after appointment, both of them are to be treated similarly for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post, as no reservation can be given in favour of any of them and both are to be treated as General Category Candidates. Therefore, the petitioners and other Assistant Engineers, eleven in number, who were initially appointed against reserved posts of Backward Category, including 130 Assistant Engineers, who also belong to other Backward Category but appointed on merit against unreserved posts, after the appointments, for all purposes, including promotion to the next higher posts, they are similarly situated like General Category Candidates. After appointment, they being of same class, tow separate classes amongst those equals are not permissible. 10. In the present case, step was taken by a the Central Government under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 for allocation of States to the members of a particular service and on the basis of reservation, posts were to be allocated to one or other successor State as also the members of services. 10. In the present case, step was taken by a the Central Government under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 for allocation of States to the members of a particular service and on the basis of reservation, posts were to be allocated to one or other successor State as also the members of services. In the matter of allocation of posts, while reservation in favour of Other Backward Category. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is to be taken into consideration, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is not applicable for the members of the services, belonging to Other Backward Category, after their appointment and it is only the rules, to be seen for the purpose of allocation of State that means whether he is actually a member of Other Backward Category or not. 11. So far as allocation of cadre is concerned, the Central Government has been empowered under Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 to determine the State, to which employees are to be allotted. Under Section 75 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, the Central Government has been empowered to establish one or more Advisory Committee (s) for the purposes of assisting the Central Government to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all persons, as may be affected by such action and for proper consideration of representation, if any, made by the aggrieved person. 12. Different notifications have been issued by the Central Government. Vide Notification dated 13th September, 2000, while a Re-organizaion Cell was set up, guidelines were issued as to how posts should be distributed and allocated amongst the successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand. By subsequent letter dated 21st December, 2000 while an Advisory Committee was constituted, for the purposes, of final allocation, guidelines were also issued, relevant portion of which reads as follows : III. Mandate for the State Advisory Committee.--1. The State Advisory Committee after going through the details of sanctioned posts category-wise, cadre-wise, grade-wise, shall finalize the distribution of posts between the successor States keeping in view the Administrative structure of departments finalized for the new successor States by the Central Government as also the work requirement of individual department in the successor States post reorganization. Guidelines issued by the Central Government through Secretary (Personnel)s demi-official letter No. 28.1.2000-SR(S) dated the 13th September, 2000 may also be referred.... IV. Principles for final allocation of employees.-- 1. Guidelines issued by the Central Government through Secretary (Personnel)s demi-official letter No. 28.1.2000-SR(S) dated the 13th September, 2000 may also be referred.... IV. Principles for final allocation of employees.-- 1. Final allocation of employees would be based on the distribution of post to be finalized by the State Advisory Committee; 2. The final allocation of all employees should be such that it is evenly distributed in respect of age and seniority so as to make composite an balanced cadre in the successor States. This is necessary to ensure the promotional prospects of individuals are neither unduly accelerated nor substantially reduced in the successor states to which they are finally allocated: 3. All employees who have been working in the State of Bihar existing immediately before the appointed day, and are belonging to such State services which are transferable anywhere in the entire State should be covered for final allocation. This would include long absentees, those on leave preparatory to retirement; those on other kinds of leave, training and on deputation. In other words, there should not be any case of unallocated employee who is not finally allocated to either of the successor State; 4. The reservation policy as applicable in the State of Bihar existing immediately before the appointed day, shall apply in respect of final allocation of employees to either of the successor State; 5. State service employees retiring within two years from the appointed day should not be covered for final allocation to a successor State other than which they have been serving before the appointed day; 6. In respect of educational institutions including those imparting technical and medical education, the State Advisory Committee may consider making their final allocation earlier than other services preferably by the end of current academic session so that there is no mid-term desiccation of such employees arising out of the Reorganization of States and that the academic Sessions are not disrupted on account of their final allocation; 7. The State Advisory Committee may take, a view regarding final allocation of such State service personnel who are currently working in statutory/non- statutory bodies as to whether their final allocation should be held back till the bodies are in position or otherwise; and 8. Where both husband and wife are Government employees, it would be prudent, while making final allocation to allocate them to one State, as far as practicable; 9. Where both husband and wife are Government employees, it would be prudent, while making final allocation to allocate them to one State, as far as practicable; 9. Notwithstanding the guidelines indicated above, the State Advisory Committee would be at liberty to consider any principle/factor which may become crucial in deciding the allocation of employees to the successor States. VI. Methodology for submission of representation by employees.--1. State Government employees; who feel aggrieved by the tentative final allocation list, as prepared by the State Advisory Committee, would be at liberty to submit their representations to the Re-organization Cell constituted by the State of Bihar before the appointed day, 2. State Government employees who have been provisionally ordered to serve in connection with the affairs of one of the successor States can also submit their representations to the Chief Secretary of the State in which they are working who should then forward these representations to the Reorganization Cell constituted by the State of Bihar before the appointed day, 3. All representations from employees should be self-contained, clearly indicating the specific points of grievance against the provisional/tentative final allocation list. The representations should be addressed to the Chairman, State Advisory Committee; 4. The employees may be suitably advised to ensure that representations from their end, if any, should be submitted within the prescribed time limits. 13. The State Advisory Committee held its meeting from time to time and forwarded format and pro-forma to all the departments calling for information regarding posts, personnel of reserved categories, options given by one or other employees etc. Separate options were also called for from the State Level Cadre Employees. 14. After receipt of information and option received from employees, taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the Central Government, the State Advisory Committee forwarded its recommendations to the Central Government. Thereafter, a tentative final allocation list was prepared by the State Advisory Committee against which objections were also called for from the concerned employees. After receipt of such objections, the Central Government considered each case and issued final allocation order under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re- organization Act, 2000 including the impugned order dated 29th July, 2004. 15. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that various illegalities have been committed in the matter of allocation of State. After receipt of such objections, the Central Government considered each case and issued final allocation order under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re- organization Act, 2000 including the impugned order dated 29th July, 2004. 15. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that various illegalities have been committed in the matter of allocation of State. According to them, even the State of Jharkhand has accepted that the State Advisory Committee has not followed the guidelines, issued by the Central Government in its letter and spirit. According to the petitioners, the guidelines issued by the Central Government are mandatory and there was no occasion for the Advisory Committee to deviate from such guidelines. On the other hand, the State Advisory Committee itself has accepted that it was not possible for them to follow the guidelines, issued by the Central Government, in toto. 16. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the guidelines, contained in Clause (9), as circulated vide letter dated 21st December, 2000 and quoted above. 17. By the said guidelines, the Central Government has made it clear that notwithstanding the guidelines, issued by the Central Government, the State Advisory Committee would be at liberty to consider any principle/factor,- which may become crucial in deciding the allocation of employees to the successor States. In the present cases, no specific infirmity has been brought to the notice of the Court regarding the manner, in which the services of the employees have been allocated. 18. Similar issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Sinha v. Union of India, reported in 2003 (4) JCR 165 (Jhr) : 2003 (4) JLJR 125 . The aforesaid case was tagged with batch of cases and decided by a common judgment, wherein, provisions laid down under Sections 72 and 75 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 fell for consideration. Some of the similar questions were also raised by the parties. Having noticed such submissions, the Court observed that unless the Court is compelled to interfere on the basis of the clear illegality or unreasonableness, the Court should leave the bifurcation as it is. Some of the similar questions were also raised by the parties. Having noticed such submissions, the Court observed that unless the Court is compelled to interfere on the basis of the clear illegality or unreasonableness, the Court should leave the bifurcation as it is. While the Court noticed that the State Advisory Committee had not strictly adhered to some of the directions, originally issued by the Central Government, but taking into consideration the fact that the Central Government has itself issued supplementary directions, which were also to be implemented, refused to interfere with the order of bifurcation of Cadre and allocation of State. This judgment, as informed by the counsel for the State, has been affirmed up to the Supreme Court. 19. In the present case, no other illegality has been brought to the notice of the Court in respect of one or other individual petitioner. A general allegation has been levelled that the guidelines have not been followed. In such a situation, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Further, the decision of allocation of State having been taken by the Central Government on the basis of opinion, given by a Committee of experts i.e. State Advisory Committee, it is not desirable for this Court to determine under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to whether one or other petitioner should have been allocated the State of Jharkhand or not. In the result, there being no merit, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be not order as to costs. Amareshwar Sahay, J. I agree.