Jharkhand High CourtPriya Barata Narain Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 22 November, 2005Equivalent citations: [2006(1)JCR69(JHR)], 2006 (1) AIR JHAR R 781, (2006) 1 JLJR 45 (2006) 1 JCR 69 (JHA), (2006) 1 JCR 69 (JHA)Author:S.J. MukhopadhayaBench:S.J. Mukhopadhaya,Amareshwar SahayJUDGMENT
 

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
 

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the Order No. 9 (Bj/2004, dated 2nd September, 2004 issued by the Director (CRS), Department of Pension Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi, so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder, his services have been allocated to the successor State of Bihar.
 

2. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that his wife Smt. Meena Singh is an Assistant Teacher in Indian School of Learning, Saraidhela, Dhanbad and she cannot be transferred or posted to any school within the successor State of Bihar. According to the learned Counsel, the services of petitioner, on the other hand, can be placed in the successor State of Jharkhand as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government.
 

3. Though such pleading has been made his Court underArticle 226of the Constitution of India cannot determine as to whether the services of petitioner, in the facts and in the administrative exigency, should be placed in one or other successor State of Bihar of Jharkhand. The petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the competent authority, who will determine the claim, if possible, within three months.
 

4. So far as other grounds taken by the petitioner that the State Advisory Committee did not follow the guidelines issued by the Central Government while bifurcating the Cadre of the employees of the successor State, is a mere allegation, no specific instance has been shown to come to a definite conclusion that the decision of the State Advisory Committee is perverse and/or based on no facts. In absence of such specific averment and instance in support thereof, it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Expert Committee, namely, the State Advisory Committee, which assessed the cases of every individual employees and taking into consideration their options, if any, given, recommended to allocate one or other successor State.
 

5. The writ petition is dismissed but with aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.
 

Amareshwar Sahay, J.6. I agree.