ORDER : In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the memo dated 18.12.2009 as contained in Annexure-9 whereby the services of the petitioner has been handed over to the State of Bihar in violation of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000. Further, prayer has been made for issuance of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order as State of Jharkhand having no power to hand over the services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar after final allocation to the cadre until and unless in consultation with the Central Government. Further, prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13th September, 2011 as contained in Annexure-12 as the same has been issued in violation of 72 and 74 of Bihar Reorganization Act. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed in the government services under the Forest Department in the State of Bihar as a Clerk in the year, 1983. While working as such, an advertisement was issued on 07.08.1987 published in local Newspaper by the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board inviting the applications from the Muffasil staff and others for filling up the post of Secretariat Assistant by holding a limited competitive examination. Petitioner in pursuance to said advertisement applied for the said post but the name of the petitioner did not find place in the final list. Subsequently, revised list was also published. Being aggrieved by the merit list, writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3352 of 1990 was filed by one Krishna Mohan Srivastava and 17 others and the said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 24.03.1992 upholding the grievance of the petitioner, holding therein that the merit list was wrongly prepared in contravention of Government Resolution dated 11.07.1970 but the Hon'ble Court did not disturb the appointments already made pursuant to the aforesaid merit list. In compliance to aforesaid order BPSC prepared a merit list, since the order passed by the Court was not complied, contempt application bearing MJC No.1059 of 1993 was initiated. During pendency of the contempt application, altogether 415 persons whose names figured in the merit list dated 03.12.1993 were appointed on the post of Assistant and accordingly, the said contempt application was dropped. During pendency of the contempt application, altogether 415 persons whose names figured in the merit list dated 03.12.1993 were appointed on the post of Assistant and accordingly, the said contempt application was dropped. After the publication of the merit list, the petitioner submitted his joining in Welfare Department. After re-organization of the State, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and the service of the petitioner was also confirmed. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner is employee of State of Jharkhand and no order can be passed at the instance of Bihar by Jharkhand because Jharkhand is not bound with any order or direction passed by State of Bihar. Even the State of Jharkhand having no power under Re-organization Act to hand over the services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar without consultation with the Central Government but the impugned order dated 18.12.2009 has been passed in violation of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations vide Annexures 10 & 10/1 of the writ application. Since, the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision reported in 2002 (1) JCR 106 because of petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Jharkhand. 3. During pendency of the writ application, I.A. No. 9907 of 2017 has been filed challenging the office order dated 13.12.2017 by which the petitioner has been relieved from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar and prayer has been made for quashing of the letter dated 13.12.2017 as contained in Annexure-15 of the writ application. It is stated at the bar that the petitioner would retire on 28.02.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. In pursuance to order dated 03.01.2018, learned counsel for the State sought two weeks' time to obtain instruction in respect of I.A. No.9907 of 2017 and filed affidavit in the matter. On perusal of the reply to aforesaid I.A., it appears that two persons namely Ruben Minz and Dukhu Manjhi have been relieved from the post on which they were holding prior to their appointment to the post of Assistant by concerned department. On perusal of the reply to aforesaid I.A., it appears that two persons namely Ruben Minz and Dukhu Manjhi have been relieved from the post on which they were holding prior to their appointment to the post of Assistant by concerned department. In the meanwhile, a report was called for by Welfare Department in context of petitioner vide letter dated 08.11.2017, although he had been reverted from the post of Assistant, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department vide letter dated 01.12.2017 directed Welfare Department to relieve him from the post on which he was holding prior to his joining to the post of Assistant and to submit a report for taking disciplinary action against those guilty employees, who are responsible for pending that concerned file without any action for long period and the petitioner has been relieved by Welfare Department vide letter dated 13.12.2017. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-9 dated 18.12.2009 and Annexure-12 dated 13.09.2011, the petitioner has been constrained to challenge the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has assiduously submitted that the action of the respondents is palpably illegal. The State has got no authority or jurisdiction to declare the services invalid without any prior show cause and without following principles of natural justice and the services of the petitioner is sought to be sent to the State of Bihar without effective consultation or concurrence of Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondents smacks of colorable order of repatriation of his services in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders have been passed in undue haste being infraction of provision of Re-Organization Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision as reported in 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr) (Arvind Vijay Bilung with V. N. Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2002 (1) JCR 106 (Jhr) (Ram Swarath Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 7. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents. State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2002 (1) JCR 106 (Jhr) (Ram Swarath Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 7. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents. In the counter-affidavit, it has been interalia submitted that the reversion order was issued vide letter dated 22.11.1996 by Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar in compliance with the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.1777 of 1994 (Ghanshyam Kamti & others Vs. Bihar State & others), C.W.J.C. No.4423 of 1994 (Devendra Prasad & others Vs. Bihar State & others). The execution of the said order was stopped vide office order dated 13.03.1997 in compliance of interim order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court passed on 02.12.1996 in I.A. No.233/96 (Navin Chandra & Others Vs. State of Bihar) as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, on the basis of order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No.576 of 1999 (Navin Chandra and others Vs. Bihar State and Others), L.P.A. No.432 of 1999 (Arun Kumar and others Vs. Bihar State and Others) and also L.P.A. No. 523 of 1999 (Dukhu Manjhi and Others Vs. Bihar State and Others), the State Government of Bihar has passed an office order dated 05.10.2009 and lifted the stay on execution of the order dated 13.03.1997 as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, on the basis of said order, the petitioner was directed to join the post to which he was holding prior to appointment to the post of Assistant vide office order dated 18.12.2009 (vide Annexure-9 of the writ petition). Therefore, the said order is wholly based on recommendation of the State of Bihar. 8. Learned counsel for the State has also referred to reply to I.A. No.9907 of 2017 wherein it has been submitted that all actions in this regard have taken of the direction of the Hon'ble Patna High Court and on the recommendation of the State of Bihar. So far as Sections 72 and 74 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000 does not define the appointment and reversion of any employee. The act only decides for allocation of the employee of the State of Bihar and Successor State of Jharkhand. So far as Sections 72 and 74 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000 does not define the appointment and reversion of any employee. The act only decides for allocation of the employee of the State of Bihar and Successor State of Jharkhand. After receipt of the report, the petitioner's services has been reverted from the post of Assistant, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department vide letter dated 01.12.2017 so as to on which, he was holding prior to the post of Assistant. Accordingly, the petitioner has been relieved by Welfare Department vide letter dated 13.12.2017. 9. After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (I) The moot question for consideration as to whether the impugned order Annexure-9 and Annexure-15 to I.A. No.9907 of 2017 are legally sustainable in view of Sections 72 and 74 of the Reorganization Act, 2000. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer Sections 72, 74 and 76 of the Reorganization Act, 2000 reads as under: “72. Provisions relating to services in Bihar and Jharkhand-(1) Every person, who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar 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 Jharkhand. (2) As soon as may be after the 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. 74. (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. 74. Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post.-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 Bihar in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor-State 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. Power of Central Government to give directions-The Central Government may give such directions to the State Government of Bihar and the State Government of Jharkhand as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this part and the State Government shall comply with such directions.” Form the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that no other provision under the Reorganization Act, 2000 which empowers the newly created State of Jharkhand to send back the services of those officers who shall be deemed to continue in the State of Jharkhand till cadre division is finalized by the Central Government. (II) On perusal of the Annexure-4 to the writ application, the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No.432 of 1999 wherein it has been mentioned that State of Bihar has no power in case of employee of Jharkhand State since the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. In view of the decision as reported in 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr) in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung with V.N. Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. In view of the decision as reported in 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr) in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung with V.N. Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and also as reported in 2002 (1) JCR 106 (Jhr) in the case of Ram Swarath Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (III) It is no more res-integra that the State has no power to send back the services of any officer to the State of Bihar in view of the provisions of Sections 72 and 74 of the Reorganization Act, 2000. Moreover, since the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to recommend with regard to services of the petitioner and, therefore, the action by the State of Jharkhand is bereft of any jurisdiction being violation of aforesaid section of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and coupled with the judicial pronouncements, the impugned order vide Annexure-9 dated 18.12.2009 and Annexure-15 dated 13.12.2017 to I.A. No.9907 of 2017 being not legally sustainable are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. In view of the final order passed in W.P. (S) No.2446 of 2010, I.A. No.9907 of 2017 also stands disposed of.