Sunil Pawar v. Union of India

Committee after hearing respondent no.4 by an order dated 8th April, 2008 reaffirmed the final allocation made in favour of respondent no.4 on 18th May, 2006. Petitioners are contending that the order dated 8th April, 2008 having been passed without notice to them, should be deemed to have been passed, without following the law, known as Audi Alteram Partem. We reaffirm that in the matter of allocation of an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttarakhand, another employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh never had nor has and never to have acquired any right to interfere. In the matter of such allocation, the law is clear that the allocation should be made by ensuring fair and 4 equitable treatment of all persons affected by the allocation, namely, the allocation should be made so that the allottee is not affected and in the matter of such allocation equitable and fair treatment is expected for all persons to be allocated. By reading “ensuring of fair and equitable treatment of all persons affected” as occurring in Clause (b) of Section 76 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, it cannot be contended that a person who has been allocated to the State of Uttaranchal and is not aggrieved by said allotment, can contend that allotment of another person to the State of Uttarakhand is either inequitable or unfair to him.

#3. For the reason already indicated above, we hold that there was no decision of the Central Government contained in its order dated 29th June, 2006 to give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in law there was and is no such requirement and, accordingly, contention of the petitioners that the order dated 8th April, 2008 has been passed without hearing them is of no substance.

#4. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, accordingly. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)

22.12.2010 Arti