D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners in this writ application, have challenged the impugned orders (Annexures -5, 7, 8 and 9) passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the order under which the petitioners, who were earlier working under the erstwhile unified State of Bihar and later, were allotted the Jharkhand cadre, was subsequently cancelled. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners originally belong to the State of Jharkhand and they were earlier employed in the Bihar Legislative Council. Upon re -organisation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners had submitted their options for allocation of the Jharkhand cadre. Their prayer was allowed whereafter they were allocated the Jharkhand cadre, but subsequently by the impugned orders, their earlier allotment of the Jharkhand cadre has been cancelled by the State of Jharkhand and they have been reverted to the State of Bihar on the ground that there being no Legislative Council in the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners cannot be accommodated in the State of Jharkhand. Learned Counsel submits that the aforesaid ground is patently misconceived and misleading and contrary to the provisions of the State Re -organization Act. Learned Counsel explains that under the State Re -organization Act, there is no such Policy Guideline or Rule, which lays down that upon the allotment of the State cadre, the Government servants working in one Department should be accommodated in the corresponding same department in the other State.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent -State of Jharkhand and the Respondent -State of Bihar raise a preliminary issue as to whether the instant writ application is maintainable in view of the admitted fact that upon the reversion of the petitioners, they have joined their respective posts in the State of Bihar and as such, they cannot file this writ application in this Court.;