P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THE Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 brought in its wake the problem of cadre division in various services, including the All India Service in the undivided State of Bihar. In view of the bifurcation of the State the cadres had to be divided and separate allotment made in the reoganized State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. As per Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, as soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government had to determine by special or general order, the successor State to which every person, who immediately before the appointed day, was serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar, the final allotment for service and the date with effect from which such allotment was to take effect. The appointed day was 15.11.2000, when the separate States came into existence. As regards the State Civil Services and the State Police Service, the Central Government made the final allocation by way of notifications dated 26.4.2003 and 22.4.2003 respectively. Various writ petitions were filed essentially by persons disappointed at not being allotted to the State of Jharkhand. They challenged the notification on the ground that the cadre division was violative of Section 75 of the Reorganization Act, 2000, was arbitrary and unfair. The learned Single Judge called upon the Union of India, the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar to answer three questions which he thought arose for consideration. They are, - - (i) whether the final allocation of sanctioned posts has been made (a) category -wise, (b) cader -wise, (c) Grade -wise or not? (ii) whether the final allocation of employees in one or other successor State has been made after allocation of sanctioned posts or not? and; (iii) whether the principles of final allocation have been followed or not, particularly in respect to evenly distribution of the employees on the basis of age and seniority?
(2.) THE learned Single Judge also referred the writ petition to a Division Bench for decision. He also directed that status -quo be maintained in respect of those in service who were to retire within one year of his order. He clarified it by saying that if any of the petitioners was at present working in the State of Jharkhand and was to retire by 31.5.2004, he/she should not be relieved to join the successor State of Bihar. Subsequent to the reference to the Division Bench, counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, the Union of India and the State Advisory Committee entrusted with recommending the cadre division. Section 74 of the Reorganization Act, 2000 provides for continuance of the officers in the existing State of Bihar, to continue in the same posts as officers of the successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand, subject to the right of the competent authority, on and from the appointed day, to pass any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. Section 75 authorizes the Central Government to establish one or more Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to discharge of any of its functions under part VIII of the Reorganization Act and for ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of that part and the proper consideration of any representation made by such persons. It is needless to say that Part VIII makes provisions as to the Services in the Existing State of Bihar and distribution of officers to the successor States. Section 76 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to give direction to the State Governments of Bihar and Jharkhand for the purpose of giving effect to the earlier provisions of Part VIII and obliges the State Government to comply with such direction. There is no dispute that an Advisory Committee in terms of Section 75 of the Re -organisation Act was formed, consisting of the Chief Secretaries of the successor States and others. The Central Government issued directions in terms of Section 76 of the Act. Additional directions were also issued to meet certain specified contingencies. The Advisory Committee followed some of the directions, but did not follow some others. Various representations were made by the officers. The Advisory Committee either recommended the acceptance or rejection of those representations. The Central Government, essentially accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and completed the cadre division. Taking note of the relevant criteria, the division was in the proportion of 2 : 1, two to the successor State of Bihar and one to the State of Jharkhand. We may notice here that that proportion is not in dispute, or has not been questioned by any one. The essential grievance as regards the directives issued by the Central Government was that, whereas the guidelines of the Central Government directed the allocation of posts, the Advisory Committee did not do the same, but undertook the task of allocation of the officers; and though the directive by the Central Government was to bring about a cadre -wise, category -wise and grade -wise division, the same was not implemented. The complaint was that this has resulted in there being no even distribution of the officers, and thus resulted in some of the officers, who had opted for being allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand, being deprived of their legitimate right to get allotted to the State of their choice. There was no proper application of mind to the representations made and they have been rejected in a mechanical manner. Thus, the directive of Section 75(b) of the reorganization Act has been flouted.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing and in the light of the contentions raised, we directed the Union Government and the State Advisory Committee to produce all the relevant flies before us for scrutiny. The relevant files were produced for our perusal. A supplementary affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Advisory Committee setting out the steps taken by the Committee and setting out the manner in which they went about completing the cadre division. Further arguments were also heard based on the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State Adivsory Committee and only thereafter the hearing was concluded.;