ORDER 1. The petitioner, an employee of the State of Bihar, was working a Registrar (Paediatrics) as on the appointed day of bifurcation of the State of Bihar. When the petitioner and others were asked to submit option to choose the State they want to be with, the petitioner opted for the State of Bihar. Upon consideration of such option, the concerned Department prepared Proforma IX. While preparing the said proforma, the Department informed that the Home District of the petitioner is in Bihar and he has opted for Bihar. In the proforma it was mentioned that the Gradation No. of the petitioner is not available. In the proforma, the name of the petitioner figured at SI. No.17. Above him, there were two persons belonging to General Category to which category the petitioner belonged. According to the calculations given in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Advisory Committee, only three Registrars (Paediatrics) were to be retained in Bihar. Inasmuch as the Gradation No. was not indicated in Proforma IX and inasmuch as the name of the petitioner figured after the name of two other Registrars (Paediatrics) in Proforma IX, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the petitioner must be junior to those other two persons, whose names figured above the name of the petitioner in Proforma IX. While considering the allocation, the Committee found that there is one person, who is also Registrar (Paediatrics) and belongs to General Category and comes within Special Class covered by Summary para 6(b) and, accordingly, that person having opted for Bihar, the Committee had to bring him to Bihar. Inasmuch as two other persons were above the petitioner in Proforma IX, proceeding on the basis that those two persons are senior to the petitioner, while those two persons, who had also opted for Bihar, were allotted to Bihar, the petitioner, despite having had opted for Bihar, had to be allotted to Jharkhand since no further post was available in the State of Bihar. On the basis as above, the tentative Gradation List was prepared. Petitioner made a representation against the said Gradation List and thereby pointed out that he is senior to one of those Registrars (Paediatrics), who had been shown above him in Proforma IX, namely, Dr. Navjeewan. On the basis as above, the tentative Gradation List was prepared. Petitioner made a representation against the said Gradation List and thereby pointed out that he is senior to one of those Registrars (Paediatrics), who had been shown above him in Proforma IX, namely, Dr. Navjeewan. In order to ascertain this claim of the petitioner as put forward by him in his representation, the Committee forwarded the representation to the Department concerned. The Department concerned reported that the petitioner has not produced evidence in support of his seniority claim and accordingly allocation should be made as per Proforma IX. However, admittedly, in Proforma IX the Gradation No. of the Petitioner had not been supplied. The Committee in such circumstances made recommendation to the Central Government in accordance with the tentative list without affecting any alteration thereto. Two months thereafter, on 6th June, 2007 the Committee received a letter from the Department, where the petitioner was working, which confirmed that the petitioner is senior to said Dr. Navjeewan. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Committee it has stated that it is greatly concerned about the situation that h s arisen in the facts and circumstances of the case and, accordingly, has reported the matter to the Government of India, but at the same time as yet it has not decided the principle on the basis of which a situation of this nature can be dealt with, in view of final notification of cadre allocation having been published by the Government of India. In the counter affidavit it has also been stated that it would decide the issue at its next sitting. It has also requested the Government of India to convey a directive in this connection. 3. Having regard to what has been stated above, it appears that it was due to non supply of appropriate information by the Department, where the petitioner was working, the present imbroglio has been created. If the correct information’s as were supplied by the Department on 6th June, 2007 had been supplied to the Committee at the time when the representation of the petitioner against the tentative list was placed by the Committee to the Department, the petitioner's entitlement in terms of the decisions of the Government of India and the Committee would not have had been shattered. 4. 4. In those circumstances the Writ Petition is disposed of with a request to the Committee to look into the case of the petitioner and to reach him his entitlement in accordance with law. 5. Having regard to what has been state above, the State of Bihar is requested to permit the petitioner to continue in the State of Bihar in an appropriate post until further decision by the Committee, which the Committee is requested to take at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from today. The Committee is requested to take the decision upon notice to any person, who may likely to be suffered by reason of the decision to be taken by the Committee. 6. Before parting I only remind myself that by reason of laches on the part of another, a legal entitlement of a citizen cannot be taken away. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of.