Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2716 (ALL)

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-07-30

SUNIL AMBWANI

body2009
JUDGMENT Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—All the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, serving as police officers of subordinate ranks in Civil Police in the State of Uttar Pradesh, have prayed for quashing he orders by which, by way of final allocation by the Central Government under Section 73 (2) of the U.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000 they have been transferred by final allocation to the State of Uttarakhand, and have been directed to be relieved to join in the State of Uttaranchal. 2. Sections 73, 75, 76 and 77 of the U.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000 relevant for deciding the issues raised in these writ petitions are quoted as below : “73. Provisions relating to other services.—(1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttranchal : Provided that every direction under this sub-section issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government. 75. 75. Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post.—(1) Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority in that successor State : Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. 76. Advisory Committee.—The Central Government may, by order, establish one or more Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to— (a) the discharge of any of its functions under this Part; and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this Part and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons. 77. Power of Central Government to give directions.—The Central Government may give such directions to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government of Uttranchal as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving to the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Government shall comply with such directions.” 3. The Central Government notified 9.11.2000 as the ‘appointed day’ under Section 2 (a) of the Act. Section 73 (2) of the Act empowers the Central Government to determine by general or special order, the successor State to which every person mention in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which the allotment to take effect. The final allotment has to be done by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee appointed under Section 76 for ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons likely to be affected, and for proper consideration of any representation made by such person. The final allotment has to be done by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee appointed under Section 76 for ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons likely to be affected, and for proper consideration of any representation made by such person. Under Section 77 the Central Government can give directions to the State Government, as may appear to it to be necessary for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of para 8 of the Act. 4. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India wrote a letter dated 13.9.2000 to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. This letter stated that discussions were held in the meeting with the three Chief Secretaries of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and U.P. on 6.9.2000 in the Chambers of Sri B.B. Tandon, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions on the principles to be followed for allocating personnel belonging to the services other than All India Service to the new States in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sri B.B. Tandon also sent, along with that letter a copy of the guidelines containing the principles and modalities of handling the personnel and service matters which should be followed by the State Government for all services other than all India services. This letter mentioned nodal officers in the Central Government who may be contacted by the State Government, for any guidance and clarifications. Various principles were mentioned in the guidelines annexed to the aforesaid letter. The Chief Secretary, U.P. formulated the policy of allocation of personnel in pursuance of the guidelines of these Central Government dated 13.9.1990 in which the distribution of personnel were laid down on the basis of three criteria, namely (i) option (ii) domicile status, and (iii) deputation. 5. The Central Government constituted the State Advisory Committee consisting of the Chief Secretaries of U.P. and Uttaranchal and Shri Vishwa Nath Anand, Former Chief Secretary and the Chairman of the Committee, vide the letter of the Secretary, Government of India dated 21.12.2000/22.12.2000. The first meeting of the State Advisory Committee was held at Delhi on 28.4.2001 and was then held on 2.7.2002 at Nainital in the State of Uttaranchal, in which certain norms were laid down and some previous policies were revised vide Government Order dated 6.11.2002. The first meeting of the State Advisory Committee was held at Delhi on 28.4.2001 and was then held on 2.7.2002 at Nainital in the State of Uttaranchal, in which certain norms were laid down and some previous policies were revised vide Government Order dated 6.11.2002. The State Government issued revised Government Order dated 15.7.2002 regarding final allocations of personnel allegedly on the basis of norms and guidelines laid down by the State Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 2.7.2002. The first two conditions for allocating the personnel to the State of Uttaranchal were; (i) optional and (ii) domicile status. The remaining vacancies, if any left, were to be filled as per Clauses 3 to 8 in the Government Order dated 15.7.2002. 6. In the Government Order dated 15.7.2002 in para 2 (b) the procedure and criteria for allocation of State service personnel was prescribed, which provided firstly the allocations of persons, who had given their options upto 15.6.2001 for allocation of the State of Uttaranchal. If there were any vacancies, the same were to be filled by the domiciles of the State of Uttaranchal. A person would be treated as domicile of Uttaranchal, if he had declared any of the 13 districts in the State of Uttaranchal as his home district in his service records prior to 1.4.2000. If still any vacancy remained to be filled, the same was to be allocated to the junior most working employees in the concerned cadre working in the same pay scale. The fourth and last condition provided that in carrying out the directions for determining the junior most persons, reservations shall be ensured for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and other backward classes and further that so far as possible, proportional prorata of the junior most employees should be worked out of every batch in the cadre. 7. In pursuance to the decision taken by the State Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 21.10.2003 the Director Generals of Police of both the States of U.P. and Uttaranchal met on 22.10.2003 to decide about the allocations of personnel of civil police and transport department, for allocations. 7. In pursuance to the decision taken by the State Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 21.10.2003 the Director Generals of Police of both the States of U.P. and Uttaranchal met on 22.10.2003 to decide about the allocations of personnel of civil police and transport department, for allocations. The Inspector General of Police, U.P.; the Director General of Police, U.P.; the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Uttaranchal and the Director General of Police, Uttaranchal agreed in the meeting, for allocations of the cadre in a manner that out of 72508 members of the police officers of the ranks of Inspector, Sub Inspector, Head Constables and Constables, a total number of 4884 posts were allocated to the State of Uttaranchal. For the cadres of Sub Inspector (MT), Head Constable (MT) and constable-drivers out of total number of 5655 posts 418 were allocated to the State of Uttaranchal. The 18 vacancies of these posts were also allocated to the State of Uttaranchal. In the third and the last category of Armed Police and Transport Police Branch, out of total number of 26119 posts of reserved Inspectors, Sub Inspectors, armed police (including the Traffic Sub Inspectors), Head Constables in armed police (including the transport police) and constables in armed police (including the transport police), 2864 posts were allocated to the State of Uttaranchal and that 416 vacancies were also allocated to the State of Uttaranchal. In this manner out of total strength of the police force of the rank below the Inspectors of 104282 personnel 8166 personnel were allocated to the State of Uttaranchal along with 434 vacancies. 8. In paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit of Smt. Neeti Dwivedi, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal Cell) U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad she has given the manner in which the allocations were made. In Pushpak Jyoti v. State of U.P., 2004 (55) ALR 28 a Division Bench of this Court examined the validity of the criteria adopted for allocation in the meeting of the State Advisory Committee held on 2.7.2002. Eight principles for allocation of personnel to Uttaranchal suggested by the Chief Secretary of U.P. were accepted : “1. The first of the allotted will be optees to Uttranchal. 2. Those whose home district as declared in service records lies within Uttranchal, will be allotted to that State. 3. Eight principles for allocation of personnel to Uttaranchal suggested by the Chief Secretary of U.P. were accepted : “1. The first of the allotted will be optees to Uttranchal. 2. Those whose home district as declared in service records lies within Uttranchal, will be allotted to that State. 3. If vacancies persist, the junior most as on the appointed day in the desired pay scale would be allotted. 4. While carrying out the exercise care would be taken to observe the criteria regarding reservation of SCs/STs/OBCs and others. Care would also be taken to allocate personnel pro rata according to the total strength of the batch, as far as possible. 5. If both husband and wife are in service, allotment would be in accordance with the option of the senior with reference to the pay scale. In case of officers finally allotted to Uttaranchal vide Government of India’s order dated 11.9.2001, the spouse would be allotted Uttaranchal only, and not Uttar Pradesh. 6. Female employees would be allocated according to their options, subject to the condition that those whose spouses are covered by point 2 or point 3 would be allotted Uttaranchal only, and not Uttar Pradesh. 7. Those employees who are due to retire within two years will be allotted as per their option. 8. Handicapped employees, if not finally allotted to Uttranchal vide orders dated 11.9.2001 issued by Government of India would be allotted as per their options. There was consensus on the adoption of these norms to govern the allocation of personnel.” 9. The Court held that all the eight principles are objective criteria designed to avoid any complaint of pick and choose. The criteria thus could not be regarded as arbitrary. They have been framed by senior and experienced administrators and hence the Court did not interfere with their decision. The Chairman of the Committee had also suggested that the cases of genuine and extreme hardship case may be put up before the State Advisory Committee for disposal. 10. The Court in Pushpak Jyoti’s case considered the submissions raised by the counsels for the parties with regard to final allocations, which affects the change in the employer without the consent of the employee, and the challenge to paragraph 2 (b) (2) of G.O. dated 15.7.2002 as violative of Art.16 (2) of the Constitution of India. 10. The Court in Pushpak Jyoti’s case considered the submissions raised by the counsels for the parties with regard to final allocations, which affects the change in the employer without the consent of the employee, and the challenge to paragraph 2 (b) (2) of G.O. dated 15.7.2002 as violative of Art.16 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Court found that after a few years, local recruitment is to be made by the State of Uttaranchal and that till then there should not be any administrative vacuum in the State. The argument of violation of Art.16 (2) was not accepted, on the ground that the decision to allocate the persons, whose domicile/place of work is in the State of Uttaranchal, is not irrational. The Central Government has to formulate some or other criteria for allocating the employees to the State of Uttaranchal. The criteria found better from the point of view of efficiency in administration was considered, and is valid. The challenge to unreasonable classification violating Art.14 of the Constitution of India in the allocation was not accepted by the Court. The Court, thereafter, considered the arguments to the unreasonableness of the decisions taken for application of cadres and found that unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not governed by any reasons or is discriminatory or infringes any statutes or constitution, the judicial interference in such decisions are not permitted. The Central Government constituted a State Advisory Committee consisting of senior officers, who had wide and long experience in the administration. Their decisions were accepted by the Central Government with an opportunity to the officials to make representations against the tentative list. There was thus no arbitrariness in the decision. The Court dismissed all the writ petitions and vacated the interim orders with observations in para 71 as follows : “71. We may mentioned that we have only considered the validity of the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 and the principles laid down therein which we have found to be valid and constitutional. We have not considered in this bunch of petitions any individual complaint where the Government employee has complained of breach of the principles contained in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002. We may mentioned that we have only considered the validity of the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 and the principles laid down therein which we have found to be valid and constitutional. We have not considered in this bunch of petitions any individual complaint where the Government employee has complained of breach of the principles contained in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002. In fact the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 itself states (at the end) that if there is any individual case of clear breach of the guidelines and principles mentioned in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 it will be open to such employee to make a representation to the State Advisory Committee which was nominated by the Central Government in this connection. In fact many such representations were made and were considered and decided by the Committee. Hence we cannot now interfere.” 11. The decisions of this Court in Pushpak Jyoti (supra) was challenged in Special Leave Petitions. The Supreme Court issued notices and directed status quo to be maintained. A large number of Special Leave Petitions were filed and tagged with leading case. The special leave petition in case of Pushpak Jyoti were subsequently withdrawn, with the result, that judgment in Pushpak Jyoti’s case has become final. 12. The Supreme Court, thereafter, had an occasion to consider the transfer of employees in pursuance to the reorganization of the State of Bihar by Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 in Purshottam Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2006) 9 SCC 458 . The judgment of the High Court holding that transfer of the appellants to the State of Jharkhand was held to be legal, lawful and proper. 13. In another case from Bihar, in Indra Deo Paswan v. Union of India, (2007) 7 SCC 250 once again the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the transfer of employees in pursuance to allocation of cadres under Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The argument that appellant was native of a district, which was part of reorganized State of Bihar and was seniormost officer in the Department of Mines at the relevant time, was not accepted on the ground that nothing unfair was done by such allocation and no case of malafide or irrationality was made out. The argument that appellant was native of a district, which was part of reorganized State of Bihar and was seniormost officer in the Department of Mines at the relevant time, was not accepted on the ground that nothing unfair was done by such allocation and no case of malafide or irrationality was made out. The Supreme Court held in Indra Deo Paswan (supra) : “The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the order allocating him to the reorganized State of Bihar has turned out to be punitive since it altered his conditions of service since he was officiating as Additional Director with effect from 21.6.1997 though the order in that behalf itself was passed only on 17.11.2003. It was further contended that the allocation was vitiated by non-application of mind by the State Advisory Committee. The guidelines issued in the matter of allocation had been violated. The High Court has refused to interfere only on the basis of the misunderstanding of an earlier decision of that Court in Prakash Chandra Sinha etc. v. Union of India and others, 2003 (4) J.C.R. 165 . These contentions are met on behalf of the respondents by pointing out that the appellant was the senior-most in the Department of Mines, had been given his due place and in fact it was to protect his position as No. 1 in the ranked list and by taking note of the prospects of his promotion, the availability of the 2004 AIR Jhar HCR 229 only post of Director of Mines as on the appointed day that he was allocated to the reorganized State of Bihar and there was no question of the order of allocation being punitive as contended. The norms set down and the guidelines issued had been duly followed and there was no reason to interfere on the ground of non-compliance with the guidelines or on the ground of non-application of mind. The norms set down and the guidelines issued had been duly followed and there was no reason to interfere on the ground of non-compliance with the guidelines or on the ground of non-application of mind. In Prakash Chandra Sinha’s case, the High Court had laid down that unless the Court is compelled to interfere on the basis of a clear illegality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the Court should leave the allocation of personnel in the various services as it was and that acceptance of individual grievances, unless clear cases are made out, would make it a never ending process and that would not be in the interests of the reorganized States or of the employees and going by this yardstick, the High Court was justified in the case on hand in not interfering with the allocation of the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar. It was also submitted that after all, the appellant was a native of a district in the reorganized State of Bihar and he was the senior-most in the Department of Mines even in the undivided State of Bihar and continues to be so in the reorganized State of Bihar and the solitary post of Director of Mines as on the appointed day, available only in the State of Bihar, was within the reach of the appellant and he could not be deprived of that prospect of promotion by being allocated to the State of Jharkhand, which as on the appointed day, did not have the post of Director of Mines.” 14. The Court has thereafter considered the allocations of the cadres of police department and various other services and the transfer of employees in pursuance to such allocations to the State of Uttaranchal and has dismissed all the petitions. In Kapil Kishore Lal v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25587 of 2008 a Division Bench by its judgment dated 23.5.2008 disposed of the writ petition with directions that if a representation along with copy of the order is made by the petitioner pointing out difficulties faced by him including the allegation that certain persons junior to him are still retained in the State of U.P., while sending the petition on deputation, the same shall be considered and suitable orders shall be passed. 15. In Prashant Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. 15. In Prashant Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27114 of 2008 of a police officer was dismissed on 3.6.2008. The writ petition of Mansoor Ali v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 63885 of 2007 of the non-gazetted officers of Group-C in the Directorate of Education, personnel posted as auditors in the State of U.P. was dismissed on 14.2.2008. In Ganga Prasad v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 9242 of 2008 relating to the transfer of police constables, the Court dismissed the case on 12.3.2008 with the findings that all the 309 objections/representations against the tentative final allocation list dated 11.6.2003 were duly considered and decided by the State Advisory Committee. A similar writ petition of Hare Ram Yadav v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 4502 of 2009 was dismissed on 30.1.2009; Writ Petition No. 5609 of 2009, Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of U.P.; Writ Petition No. 1759 of 2009, Ram Kishore v. State of U.P.; Writ Petition No. 4502 of 2009, Hare Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. were dismissed on 6.2.2009, 20.1.2009 and 30.1.2009 respectively following Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Pushpak Jyoti (supra) and the Supreme Court judgment in Indra Deo Paswan (supra). 16. In this batch of writ petitions the Court has been called upon to decide the questions; whether representations of the petitioners were considered and decided by the State Advisory Committee, and whether the petitioners are junior most in the cadre in accordance with the principles of determining the junior most employees in the department. By an amendment application the petitioners have also challenged the rationality of the principles of determination of batch wise seniority on prorata basis, of the last three recruitments and the applicability of the rules of reservation for such determination. 17. In the counter affidavit of Shri S. Nayak, Under Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension, New Delhi it is stated on behalf of the Government of India that role of the Central Government in the matter of allocation of employees of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh is to frame guidelines and to remove any defects, which may come in the way of implementation of the guidelines. It has also to put up a mechanism with the task of implementing the guidelines examining each and every persons’ case being affected by the reorganization and recommending to the Central Government on the basis of thorough examination of all relevant aspects of the individual case. The State Advisory Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of a retired IAS officer of the U.P. Cadre. The Government of India issued general guidelines in para 3 (d) and (e) in its letter dated 13.9.2000 as follows : “3.(d) in making allocations as indicated in the para above, the importance of ensuring in each case, as far as possible, a composite and balanced cadre with age and seniority groups evenly distributed, should be borne in mind. (e) in cadres/categories where the composition and balance of the cadres have not been achieved, to the extent of shortfall, the list may be completed by including the names of the junior most personnel of the respective cadres/category.” 18. The State Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 2.7.2002 finalised norms/ criteria for allocation of personnel. These included the allocations first by option, followed by domicile and lastly on the basis of junior most as on appointed date. It was stated that the junior most as on the appointed day in the desired pay scale should be considered. However, while carrying out the exercise, care would be taken to observe the criteria regarding reservation of SCs/STs/OBCs and others. Further care was to be taken to allocate personnel on prorata basis according to the total strength of the batch as far as possible and that circular letter dated 15.7.2002 in pursuance to the meeting of State Advisory Committee dated 2.7.2002. The hardships in individual cases were required to be put up before the State Advisory Committee for disposal/ decision. 19. The Member Secretary of the State Advisory Committee and the Secretary, Government of U.P. circulated a letter dated 15.7.2002 with the principle, procedure and arrangement for final allocation of the personnel in pursuance of the decisions taken by the State Advisory Committee communicated vide its letter dated 9th July, 2002. 19. The Member Secretary of the State Advisory Committee and the Secretary, Government of U.P. circulated a letter dated 15.7.2002 with the principle, procedure and arrangement for final allocation of the personnel in pursuance of the decisions taken by the State Advisory Committee communicated vide its letter dated 9th July, 2002. By this letter, details of the method of allocation were communicated, which provided that allocations have to be made on the basis of the fixation of pay in the cadres, for which information had to be collected with reference to 8.11.2000 as the cut off date and for which the information must be made available by those departments, which have not made such information available to the State Advisory Committee. 20. With regard to the guidelines and the procedure for allocation the eight points, which have been referred to in Pushpak Jyoti’s case were circulated and which also included that where both the husband and wife are serving the allocations shall be made on the option exercised by senior government servants and that under the orders of the Government of India dated 1.9.2001, the allocation of the State of Uttaranchal shall be made of the spouses of the employees, who have been finally allocated Uttaranchal State and not State of U.P. The option of the women employees will be accepted if their cases are covered in the category, where both husband and wife are serving. If their husbands are domicile of Uttaranchal and are found to be junior most, they will be allotted only Uttaranchal State and not the State of U.P. For the employees, who have less than two years of service will be allotted Uttaranchal State subject to their options. The disabled employees were also given privilege of allocation on the basis of their options, if they are not covered by the orders of the Central Government dated 11.9.2001. 21. The determination of the junior most in the cadre was provided to be made by prorata proportional representation of the last batches, applying the rules of reservation. The disabled employees were also given privilege of allocation on the basis of their options, if they are not covered by the orders of the Central Government dated 11.9.2001. 21. The determination of the junior most in the cadre was provided to be made by prorata proportional representation of the last batches, applying the rules of reservation. For example if in any cadre there are 100 personnel of 1995 batch; 200 of 1996 batch, 300 of 1997 batch and 400 of 1998 batch and that only 100 personnel have to be allocated the State of Uttaranchal, the prorata of each batch shall be worked out 100:200:300:400=1, 2, 3, 4 and amongst these the vacancies will be divided in a manner that 50% of such personnel will be of the general category, 27% of the Other Backward Class, 21% of the Scheduled Castes and 2% of the Scheduled Tribes. It was further clarified that if in any category the vacancy is less than 1, it will be rounded of and adjusted in the largest batch. In the same manner if in any category the vacancies increased, it shall be reduced from the same category. In order to clarify the method of calculation for allocations, the annexures to the Government Order dated 15th July, 2002 also provide for an exempler, in which posts were calculated batch wise on prorata basis and thereafter rules of reservation were made applicable. 22. In the short counter affidavit of Shri S. Nayak in Writ Petition No. 4624 of 2009 in Sanjay Kumar Singh and Shri Anand Kumar, in the constable cadre, recommendations of the State Advisory Committee with regard to batch of 148 constables including Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh at page 127 is annexed along with a list of 198 constables in respect of which recommendations were deferred awaiting the report of the State Medical Board for examining the claims of their illness or their dependents. The note appended to the document indicates that the State Advisory Committee considered each case on its own merits in which the claims of handicapped persons and handicapped independents and junior spouses under the spouse policy were also considered and accepted by the State Advisory Committee. The note appended to the document indicates that the State Advisory Committee considered each case on its own merits in which the claims of handicapped persons and handicapped independents and junior spouses under the spouse policy were also considered and accepted by the State Advisory Committee. By the letter dated 14th November, 2006 by Shri Manish Mohan, Deputy Secretary, Government of India, a list of 332 persons considered by the State Advisory Committee is annexed giving the name of Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh at item 311. His representation was rejected on the ground that he was a junior employee in the cadre in the minimum of the pay scale. In para 6 of the short counter affidavit of Shri S. Nayak dated 2nd February, 2009 it is stated as follows : “The broad principle of allocation of State Cadre employees which inter alia include allocation first by ‘option’, followed by Domicile (Home District) and lastly by inclusion of junior most personnel in the reverse order of seniority. If the number of posts allocated to the successor State of Uttarakhand are more than the total number of ‘optees’ and ‘domicile’ (Home District), then the employees down in the seniority position in the cadre are considered for allocation even against their options, in order to fill up the balance posts. However, the following are the exceptions to the above mentioned policy : (i) Women employees—as far as possible, allocated based on option only. (ii) Class IV employees—as far as possible, allocated based on option only. (iii) Handicapped persons—as far as possible, allocated based on option only. (iv) Spouse policy—as far as possible, both the spouse to be allocated to a single successor State based on their option. (v) Medical Hardships cases : (a) Cancer patient—Self or family* (b) Blindness—Self only (c) Heart Bye-pass surgery—Self only if done within two years from the date of representation is considered by the Committee. (d) Kidney Transplantation—Self or family* Kidney failure and Continuing on dialysis (e) Mental illness—Self or family*, restricted to indoor treatment for at least three months. * family include spouse, dependent children and dependent parents.” 23. The petitioners have not made out any case of malafides in the matter of their allocations to the State of Uttaranchal. (d) Kidney Transplantation—Self or family* Kidney failure and Continuing on dialysis (e) Mental illness—Self or family*, restricted to indoor treatment for at least three months. * family include spouse, dependent children and dependent parents.” 23. The petitioners have not made out any case of malafides in the matter of their allocations to the State of Uttaranchal. Their case is based on the rationality of the method of determination and in rejecting their representation on the ground that they are the junior most in the cadre. The notice issued to the respondents was confined to reply whether the petitioners had made their representations and whether such representations were considered and decided by the State Advisory Committee. In the order dated 13.2.2009 the Court also directed the State Government to provide the formula on the basis of which junior most of the batches were taken subject to the rules of reservation. 24. The questions of law relating to the legality of final allocation of the cadres to the successor by the Central Government, the composition of the State Advisory Committee and the policy decision taken by it providing for guidelines in its meeting dated 2.7.2002 have been upheld in Pushpak Jyoti’s case. The special leave petition filed against the judgments have been withdrawn. The Court had found that the Chairman and the members of the State Advisory Committee consisted of very senior officers. They have wide and long experience of administration. They did not violate any statutory or constitutional principles nor the guidelines suffered from any arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense and that the Court would be slow to interfere in such matters. In Indra Deo Paswan (supra) the Supreme Court upheld the judgments in Prakash Chandra Sinha’s case in observing that unless the Court is compelled to interfere on the basis of a clear illegality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the Court should leave the allocation of personnel in various services as it was and that acceptance of individual grievances unless clear cases are made out would make it a never ending process and that would not be in the interest of the reorganized State or of the employees and going by that yardstick the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the allocation. 25. The State of U.P. was reorganized in the year 2000. A broad agreement was reached with regard to bifurcation of cadres. 25. The State of U.P. was reorganized in the year 2000. A broad agreement was reached with regard to bifurcation of cadres. The final decision for allocation providing for the principles and method was taken in the year 2002. The State Advisory Committee has decided individual representations, wherever such representations were made consistent with its policy, also taking into account individual hardships. 26. Shri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttaranchal states that the State of Uttaranchal (now named as State of Uttarakhand) is awaiting the joining of the allocated police personnel. There is acute shortage of police personnel in the State of Uttarakhand and that no recruitment has been made to fill up these posts, which were allocated at the time of bifurcation of the cadres. He states that State of Uttaranchal is willing and will allow all the police officers of subordinate ranks, who have been allocated State of Uttaranchal to join immediately. 27. The Police Department of the State of U.P. has made final allocations on the basis of the method provided by the State Advisory Committee. In the counter affidavit of Smt. Neeti Dwivedi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Legal Cell, U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad filed on behalf of the State of U.P. it is stated that final allocation was made from out of 1995 (first batch), 1995 (second batch), 1996, 1997 and 1998 batches in accordance with prorata distribution of the posts, applying the rules of reservations. The chart appended to para 5 of the counter affidavit quoted as above has given the details of the allocation on the strength of batches on prorata basis. 28. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the junior most in the cadre should be worked out on the basis of combined seniority list upto the year 2008, and the resultant arbitrariness caused on the application of the rules of reservation lacks merit. The basis on which the junior most have been found from the batches of last four recruitments does not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable at all. The counsel for the Central Government has explained the reasons for applying the prorata basis on the strength of last batches. He would submit that the object of the criteria of selecting last few batches, on prorata basis was to avoid inexperienced officers to be sent to the new State. 29. The counsel for the Central Government has explained the reasons for applying the prorata basis on the strength of last batches. He would submit that the object of the criteria of selecting last few batches, on prorata basis was to avoid inexperienced officers to be sent to the new State. 29. With the passage of time the police officers of all these batches have put in about 10 years of service but that the decision to find out junior most on prorata basis out of last four batches and to select police officers with some experience to be transferred taken in the year 2002, cannot be treated to be arbitrary and unreasonable on the ground of delay, which can mostly be attributed to the petitioners. In all these batches recruitments were made by applying the rules of reservation, which are also applicable in the State of Uttrakhand to find out junior most in the cadre of each batch. The Central Government did not commit any illegality or irrationality in adopting the formula, and implementing it. 30. Rationality is a term related to the idea of reason. One of the aspects of rationality is comprehension, intelligence or inference drawn in ordered way like syllogism. The other aspect associates rationality with explanation, understanding and justification. An action is rational, if it is logically valid. Rationality is, however, broader term than logical. It also includes uncertain but sensible argument based on probability, expectation, personal experience, whereas logic deals with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. 31. In State of U.P. v. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corpn. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 2123 the Supreme Court held that every law has to pass through the test of constitutionality, which is nothing but a formal name of the test of the rationality. 32. The State Advisory Committee had to apply some criteria for transfer of the officers in the allocation of posts to the State of Uttarakhand. The broad criteria adopted by the State Advisory Committee to firstly allocate those personnel, who have given their options and thereafter those, who were originally residents of State of Uttarakhand was found reasonable and has been upheld by this Court in Pushpak Jyoti’s case. The individual representations have been considered by the State Advisory Committee. The determination of junior most required some criteria to be adopted. The individual representations have been considered by the State Advisory Committee. The determination of junior most required some criteria to be adopted. On the date of enforcement of the Act, the batch of 1998 was the junior most with about two years of experience after training. The decision taken by the State Advisory Committee therefore to select the junior most on prorata basis from out of last five batches beginning from 1995 to 1998, was taken with the object to transfer junior most police officers of every batch with some experience. The criteria does not appear to be arbitrary, whimsical or irrational. Further the applicability of rule of reservation also serve the purpose of providing police personnel of the reserved category to the State of Uttarakhand in the same manner they were appointed in the State of Uttar Pradesh and are also appointed in the State of Uttrakhand. The selection of junior most out of five batches applying the rules of reservation, therefore, provide a homogeneous mix of the police officers of different ranks of varied experience and reserved categories. 33. In order to transfer the employees on the allocated posts some decisions had to be taken. Whatever criteria is adopted, some of the officers are likely to suffer, but that by itself cannot be a ground to challenge the policy, which is otherwise fair, rational and reasonable. 34. The counsel for the Central Government has produced lists to demonstrate that the State Advisory Committee had after scrutinizing each case on the basis of the guidelines framed by it, considered their individual representations. In all the cases, where the representations were found to have substance both on the ground of illness of the personnel or his dependents or for other compelling reasons, the State Advisory Committee had deferred the matter, and had thereafter finally considered their representation. In deserving cases the representations were allowed. The counsels appearing in the matters heard by the Court did not press for any hardship in any individual case. 35. I have examined the lists provided by the counsel for the Union of India. The cases in which representations were decided in favour of the police officers and also those cases in which representations are still pending have been separated from the bunch. 35. I have examined the lists provided by the counsel for the Union of India. The cases in which representations were decided in favour of the police officers and also those cases in which representations are still pending have been separated from the bunch. The counsels appearing for the petitioners were heard but they have not satisfied the Court with any such extreme hardship in any individual case so as to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents. 36. The selection of last four immediate batches to work out the junior most on prorata basis to select the police personnel for having a mix of experience and non-experienced officers taking on 15 July, 2002, immediately after the bifurcation of the States and the cadres, is not unreasonable or irrational decision. The applicability of the rules of reservation, equally applicable to the State of Uttrakhand is also appropriate, as the bifurcations and transfers should be made on the same criteria in which selections were made. The delay in the transfers may have resulted into fresh recruitment and consequential seniority allocated to the persons of the four batches selected for allocation and transfer. The principles formulated for finding out the junior most persons in the year 2002 will not become unreasonable by such delay, which is mostly attributable to the petitioners. The State Government in identifying the police officers for the purposes of allocation and transfer was not required to search after the cut off date and to consider the seniority attained by these personnel for the purposes of finding out the junior most persons for transfers. 37. The counsel for the State of Uttarakhand has assured, that as and when the petitioners report, they will be allowed to join, and will be given orders of postings. 38. All the writ petitions are dismissed. ———