INDRADEO PASWAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 27-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

INDRADEO PASWAN 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 27, 2007 
[G.P.MATHURANDP.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ.] 
B 
Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000: 
s. 72(2)-Bifurcation of State of Bihar-Allocation of services-
Appel/ant working as Deputy Director in State of Bihar-Recommended for C 
promotion to the post of Additional Director-Re-organisation of State of 
Bihar-Appellant provisionally allocated to State of Jharkhand as Additional 
Director-Officers called upon to submit options for serving either in 
reorganized State of Bihar or in newly created State of Jharkhand-Appellant 
opted for a/location in State of Jharkhand-Appel/ant allocated to D 
reorganized State of Bihar and shown as No. I in seniority list of his 
department, not accepting option exercised by him-Writ Petition by appellant 
~· 
challenging the allocation to State of Bihar dismissed by High Court-
Justification of-Held: Justified as no case of malafides or irrationality made 
out in the matter of allocation of appellant to Reorganized State'-There was. 
only one post of Director in the undivided State of Bihar as on the appointed. E 
day and that post was allocated to reorganized State of Bihar as per the : 
settled norms-Appellant being senior most person, had been allocated to 
1
1 
State of Bihar so that he could get his due promotion as Director-Thus· 
nothing unfair was done by such allocation-Service law. 
The appellant was working as Deputy Director (Mines) in the State of F 
Bihar. On 6.3.1997, he was appointed on officiating basis as Additional 
Director (Mines). The DPC had recommended the name of appellant for 
promotion to the post of Additional Director (Mines). Appellant moved High 
Court praying for issue of writ of mandamus direding the respondent to take 
a final decision with regard to the promotion of the appellant. High Court G 
allowed the writ petition and directed authorities to consider the case of 
appellant 
Meanwhile, the State of Bihar was reorganized under the Bihar 
Reorganization Act, 2000. The State of Jharkhand was carved out of the State 
~7 
H 
)-
:
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A of Bihar and the two separate states came into existence on 15.11.2000. The 
Central Government on 6.11.2000 provisionally allocated the services of the 
,;... 
..: 
appellant to the State of Jharkhand as Additional Director (Mines) and he 
took charge on 14.11.2000. 
B 
Under s. 72 (2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 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 connectiori with the affairs of the State of Bihar shall be finally allotted for 
service and the date with effect from which such allotment was to take effect, 
as soon as may be after the Reorganization Act came into force. The appointed 
c day in terms of the Act was 15.11.2000. 
Under the Scheme adopted for division of cadres and allocation of posts 
and personnel, the officers were called upon to submit their options for serving 
ii
either in the reorganized State of Bihar or in the newly created State of 
Jharkhand. T:1e appellant opted for allocation to the State of Jharkhand. The 
D State Advisory Committee prepared a tentative allocation list of the employees 
in various departments including the Department of Mines wherein, the 
appellant was allocated to the State of Bihar and was shown at No. 1 in the 
--\ 
seniority list of his Department. 
Pursuant to the direction of High Court, the appellant was promoted by 
E the State of Bihar to the post of Additional Director w.e.f. 21.6.1997. The 
appellant was finally allocated to the reorganized State of Bihar not accepting 
the option exercised by him vide order dated 24.2.2005. Pursuant to this 
allocation, the State of Jharkhand relieved the appellant with effect from 
10.5.2005. 
F 
Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition challenging his allocation to the 
State of Bihar. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that no 
adequate ground was made out to interfere with the allocation of the appellant 
to the reorganized State of Bihar in the cadre division. Hence the present 
appeaL 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. No case of malafides or irrationality has been made out in 
the matter of allocation of the appellant to the reorganized State of Bihar. 
'c 
The appellant is a native of a DistriCt which is part of the reorganized State 
H of Bihar. He was the senior mos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.