Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 664 (PAT)

Kunj Bihari Das v. Union Of India

2006-08-02

AFTAB ALAM

body2006
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, learned Counsel representing the State Advisory Committee. Also present are the J.C. to G.A. VIII representing the State of Bihar and Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee for the State of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by allocation of his ser-vi.ce to the State of Jharkhand arid he seeks to challenge the communication dated 23.05.2006 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms intimating the Commissioner -cum- Secretary to the Government: in the Department of Finance about the allocation of the petitioners service to that State. 3. The relevant facts are simple and brief. The petitioner is in the cadre of Deputy Secretary. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Advisory Committee, it is stated that the sanctioned strength of the cadre is 34 in which the respective shares of the two States, Bihar & Jharkhand, was in the ratio of 23:11. However, the working strength of the cadre was only 5 out of which 3 were required to be allocated to the State of Bihar and the remaining two to Jharkhand. It is also undeniable that out of the 5 Deputy Secretaries, 3 including the petitioner belong to Schedule Castes category. The remaining two, namely, Shishir Kujur and Katherine Lakra, as their names suggest, apparently belong to Scheduled Tribes category. It is also undeniable that both Kujur and Lakra had their domiciles in Jharkhand and both of them had exercised their option for that State. The other 3 Deputy Secretaries (including the petitioner), members of Scheduled Castes, had their domiciles in Bihar and all the three had, naturally, exercised option to remain in Bihar. 4. In the tentative allocation list, the petitioner was shown to have been allocated to Bihar, but curiously Kujur too was shown to be allocated to the same State contrary, to his option and domicile. To make up the deficit for Bihar, Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary, another Scheduled Castes Deputy Secretary was allocated to Jharkhand, contrary to his domicile and option. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the issuance of the tentative allocation list, Shishir Kujur was posted at Jharkhand and he continued to remain there till his retirement from service on 1.1.2006. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the issuance of the tentative allocation list, Shishir Kujur was posted at Jharkhand and he continued to remain there till his retirement from service on 1.1.2006. In the final allocation list, however, the allocations of the present petitioner and Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary were reversed; the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary was allocated to this State. 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Advisory Committee, it appears that allocations were made on SC/ST basis, that is to say, one member of the Scheduled Tribes (Katherine Lakra) was allocated to Jharkhand while Shishir Kujur was given to Bihar. Similarly, out of 3 Scheduled Castes members, two were given to Bihar and one to Jharkhand. In the tentative allocation list, the petitioner was given to Bihar and Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary to Jharkhand. Later, Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary filed an objection claiming to be senior to the petitioner and on that ground the allocations were reversed in the final allocation list. The relevant statement in this regard is to be found in paragraph 16 (iii) of the counter affidavit filed by the State Advisory Committee which is as follows. The total working strength of SC category was 3 which was apportioned between Bihar and Jharkhand as 2 and 1 respectively. All three candidates in this category were Bihar optees and domicile of Bihar. The senior 2 were allocated to Bihar & remaining 1 junior to Jharkhand following the principles states in para 7(g) (i) and 7(g)(vi). The petitioner at gratia Lion No. 580 fell in the first category and was allocated to Bihar as per his option arid the junior one Sri Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary at gradation No. 615 was allocated to Jharkhand against option. This was the position at the time of TFAL, 6. The stand of the State Advisory Committee would appear to be quite right if allocations were to be made only on the basis of the two reservation groups to which the 5 Deputy Secretaries belonged. But this Court. completely fails to understand why allocations could not be made on a broader basis, taking the total number of the working strength. The stand of the State Advisory Committee would appear to be quite right if allocations were to be made only on the basis of the two reservation groups to which the 5 Deputy Secretaries belonged. But this Court. completely fails to understand why allocations could not be made on a broader basis, taking the total number of the working strength. Admittedly, the total working strength in the cadre of Deputy Secretary was 5 out of which 2 were required to go to Jharkhand and 3 were to remain in Bihar. Two of them, being the members of Schedule Tribes had their domiciles in Jharkhand and they had also given their option for that State. In the scheme/guidelines framed for allocation, it was provided that having regard to the ethnic compositions of the two States, the members of the Scheduled Tribes were to be allocated to the State of Jharkhand as far as possible. The domicile of the concerned employee was also a very strong consideration and due weightage was also required to be given to the option exercised by the affected employees. The whole controversy could, therefore, be avoided by allocating to Jharkhand , the two members of the Scheduled Tribes and allowing the three members of the Scheduled Castes to remain in this Stale. That would have sat satisfied the three important considerations of (i) ethnic compositions of the two States, (ii)the domicile of the employees and (iii) the option exercised by them. Even after hearing Mr. Singh at length, this Court is unable to see why this simple course was not adopted and allocations were made on SC/ST basis giving rise to unnecessary disputes. 7. As it is, the division of the State has visited it with great loss and has caused much hardship to its people. It is the considered view of the Court that the authorities should act. in a mariner to minimize any further harassment to the people of the two States instead of causing further harassment and inconvenience to them. This Court is, therefore, prima facie satisfied that the allocation of services in the cadre of Deputy Secretaries is unjustified, unfair and unjust . The impugned order is accordingly quashed and (ONE LINE MISSING) Committee/Central Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in this order. This Court is, therefore, prima facie satisfied that the allocation of services in the cadre of Deputy Secretaries is unjustified, unfair and unjust . The impugned order is accordingly quashed and (ONE LINE MISSING) Committee/Central Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in this order. It is expected that a final decision in the matter will be taken and orders would be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the State Advisory Committee/Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.