S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN both the eases, as common questions of law are involved and similar orders are under challenge, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners are Scheduled Tribe (ST for short) employees of the combined State of Bihar. According to them, their residents now fall within the territory of successesor State of Jharkhand. Their grievance is against the allocation of State, as made by the Central Government in pursuance of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the Reorganisation Act, 2000).
(2.) FOR determination of the questions, as raised in both the cases, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts and law, except the relevant one, as stated hereunder. In pursuance of Reorganisation Act, 2000, the then State of Bihar was re -organized in two successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand which came into effect since 15th November, 2000. The Central Government has been empowered to allocate one or oilier successor State to Government employees under Sec. 72 of the Re -organisation Act, 2000. Provisions have been made under Sec. 75 of the Reorganization Act, 2000 empowering the Central Government to constitute Advisoiy Committee for the purpose of assisting it in regard to the discharge of any of its function and ensuring fair and equitable distribution of employees among two successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand. There are three petitioners in W.F. (S) No. 2733 of 2004 and five petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2734 of 2004. The State Advisory Committee while prepared a tentative final list recommended for allocating them the cadre under Successor 'State of Bihar '. According to the petitioners, all of them being S.T. and being permanent residents of State of Jharkhand they should have been allocated State of Jharkhand as per their option. Their grievance is that the recommendation, as made by the State Advisoiy Committee and decision, if any, taken by the Central Government, is arbitrary and illegal.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that allocation of any S.T. employee, who is resident of the Jharkhand State to the successor State of Bihar would deprive them of the constitutional guarantees and protections, inter alia, given under Articles 14, 16(4) and 29 and as such those allocation would be uncosntitutional and illegal. According to him, the petitioners being S.T. employees and residents of Jharkhand State, as per Schedule VI to the Re -organisation Act, 2000, their allocation (o the successor State of Bihar will jeopardize their right of equal opportunity guaranteed under the Constitution. It was submitted that after promulgation of Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003), petitioners being S.T. of the State of Jharkhand, will not be treated as S.T. for the successor State of Bihar. Thereby, the opportunity guaranteed to them under Article 16(4 -A) shall be taken away, if they are finally allocated the successor State of Bihar.;