S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner against the order no. 2 dated 7th December, 2005, issued by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "Marketing Board, Ranchi'). Giving reference to a decision taken by the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna, contained in letter no. 4392/Patna dated 5th December, 2005, petitioner has been informed that he has been allocated the State of Bihar, meaning thereby his services has been allocated under Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner, he being sole member of his cadre 'Marketing Specialist', posted within the territory of Jharkhand, his services cannot be placed in another cadre under the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post of Marketing Specialist is a separate cadre even since prior to reorganization of the State and creation of Jharkhand State Marketing Board, Ranchi and three different posts were available in three different cadres. It was further submitted that similar issue has been determined by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court by its unreported decision dated 31st March, 2006 in the case of 'Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Union of India and Ors., L.E.A. No. 225 of 2006 (Annexure -17) and the case of the petitioner is covered by the said decision. On 14th June, 2006, the Court while issued notice to the respondents, directed to state as to why petitioner be not granted similar relief as granted by the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (supra). The 6th and 7th respondents while taken plea that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (supra), have taken the following plea: (I) That it is humbly stated that the petitioner, who is Marketing Specialist has averred in the writ petition that the Home District is in the District of Garhwa under the State of Jharkhand when as a matter of fact the permanent address, as given by the petitioner in the office records is mentioned as House No. 216 Patliputra Colony, Patna -800013. (II) That it is stated that the Government of India, Home Ministry vide letter no. 12025/9/2004 -SR New Delhi dated 13.9.2004, a copy of which was enclosed by the Finance (Public Enterprise Bureau Department) letter no. 1/Pa Ao (Bureau) Bi Pu 14/03 (Khand -1 -800 dated 22.9.2004 and sent to the Marketing Board giving detailed guidelines with regard to division of assets and liabilities of Government and Public Undertakings between the newly created S1ate of Jharkhand and State of Bihar. (III) That it is stated that the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board vide their letter no. 3273 dated 3.9.2005 published a tentative list of employees working in the unified State of Bihar, through various newspapers, widely circulated in both the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. It is further stated that the tentative list of employees was also displayed on important notice boards and a direction was also give therein that if any employee has got any objection with regard to 'allocation of the respective cadres he may give his objection with a period of 30 days and objection received after a period of 30 days will not be considered. (IV) That it is stated that the meetings of the Sub -Committee convened on 18.11.2005 took important decision with regard to allocation of cadre of employees under the newly created State of Bihar and Jharkhand in view of Board's letter no. 3273 dated 3.9.2005. (V) That it is stated that in the meeting of the Sub -Committee convened on 18.11.2005 inter alia decision was also taken with regard to allocation of cadre of single post including that of the post of Marketing Specialist against which the petitioner was working because the petitioner was the sole person posted as Marketing Specialist and as such it was covered under the category of single post. (VI) That it is stated that in view of the guidelines as contained in Government of India, Home Ministry letter dated 13.9.2004 as also in view of the decision of the Sub -Committee taken on 18.11.2005, the petitioner's final allocation of cadre was given under State of Bihar vide office order no. 2 dated 7.12.2005 and Memo No. 8/Go dated 7.12.2005 issued by the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pandra, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the aforesaid office order also stipulated that the petitioner, who was posted as Marketing Specialist and In -charge Marketing Secretary, Marketing Committee, Giridih will be relieved with effect from 12.12.2005 and the liability of payment of his salary etc. with effect from 13.12.2005 will be that of Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board. (VII) That it is stated that in view of the objection given by the petitioner against the tentative allocation of his cadre under the State of Bihar, the same was duly considered by the Sub -Committee in its meeting dated 18.11.2005 in view of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Home Ministry, New Delhi. (VIII) That it is stated that there is clear cut provision in Board's letter No. 3273 dated 3.9.2005 in paragraph IX that in case of any cadre, service or posts having 3 posts only, in such a situation 2 posts will be allocated under the State of Bihar and one post under the State of Jharkhand. (IX) That it is 'stated that since the post of Marketing Specialist was having only one working strength and was covered under the Category of single post as such the allocation of petitioner's cadre was done under the State of Bihar and his objection was rejected by the Sub -Committee." The Government of India, Home Ministry vide letter no. 12025/9/2004 -SR, New Delhi dated 13th September, 2004, as enclosed with Finance Department's letter no. 1 dated 22nd September, 2004, forwarded the details of guideline to the Marketing Board with regard to division of assets and liabilities of the Government and public undertaking between the newly created State of Jharkhand and Bihar. The Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, vide their letter no. 3273 dated 3rd September, 2005, published a tentative list of employees working in the unified State of Bihar and objection was called for. In the meeting of Sub -Committee convened on 18th November, 2005, decision with regard to allocation of cadre of employees was taken in view of letter No. 3273 dated 3rd September, 2005. So far as the post is concerned, it is accepted by the respondent nos. 6 and 7 that the post of Marketing Specialist against which the petitioner was working is a single post in the cadre. It is informed that there was one post of Marketing Specialist in the Marketing Board. There are two other posts of Marketing Specialist in the Bihar State Marketing Board, which now fall within the territory of Bihar. The cadre of Marketing Specialist is closed cadre within the Concerned Market Committee and 'not a State cadre. Counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents submitted that the petitioner was never appointed as Marketing Specialist on substantive basis but such submission cannot be accepted, in view of letter of appointment, as was issued by the respondents and the other enclosures attached to the writ petitioner. It will be evident that the petitioner was appointed as Marketing Specialist; subsequently, in view of decision of the Bihar State Marketing Board, he was posted as Market Secretary, Marketing Board, Bokaro. Thus, it will be clear that the petitioner was appointed against a solitary post, which has been accepted by the respondent nos. 6 and 7.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , as on 14th November, 2000 i.e. a day prior to the re -organisation of the State, the petitioner was posted at Bokaro; which now fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the successor State of Jharkhand. Even after the re -organisation of the State, till the impugned order no. 2 dated 7th December, 2005 was issued, the petitioner was posted at Giridih in the State of Jharkhand. In exercise of power conferred upon it u/s 65(1) and (2) of the Bihar Re -organization Act, 2000, the Government of India from Ministry of Home Affairs taking into consideration with the mutual consent of both the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board and Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, issued an order no. 12025/2004 -SR dated 13th September, 2004. Therein, the assets and liabilities in respect of both the Boards were apportioned in the following terms: I"(i) Assets: (a) Immovable assets of the erstwhile Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board situated in either Bihar or Jharkhand will pass on to the successor Board of the State in which they are located. (b) Cash balance and movable assets of the erstwhile Board will be divided among successor Boards in the ratio of assets created in the form of market committees as 97. and 27 respectively in Bihar and Jharkhand as per audited accounts of the Board as on 31.3.2000. (ii) Liabilities: Asset specific liability of the erstwhile Board shall pass on to the successor Boards (BSAMB or JSAMB) to which the assets has been allocated. (iii) Employees: (a) All regular employees posted against sanctioned posts approved by the erstwhile Board as on 14.11.2000 would be divided on "as is where is" basis. (b) Employees posted in the Board headquarters against sanctioned posts approved by the erstwhile Board as on 14.11.2000 would also be divided in the same proportion as cash balance and movable assets as in (i)(b) above." It has been accepted by the Counsel for both the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board and Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board that the aforesaid instruction of the Government of India is binding on the Boards, which has been issued with the mutual agreement of all the parties. From the guidelines aforesaid, it will be evident that all regular employees, posted against sanctioned posts approved by the erstwhile Board as on 14th November, 2000, are to be divided "as is where is" basis. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted at Bokaro as on 14th November, 2000; thereby, as per the policy decision, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue in the State of Jharkhand by allocating him the State of Jharkhand. Similar is the view taken by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court 'in the case of 'Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (supra).;