Neeraj Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—It appears from the record relied in support of the writ petition that on 4th October, 2000, petitioner opted for being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. It further appears from the record, which has been produced alongwith the writ petition, that on 23rd December, 2000, petitioner changed his option for being allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the State of Uttarakhand and also the Union of India, at all point of time, proceeded on the basis that the second option is of no consequence. Therefore, in law, it must always be held that the valid option of the petitioner was for the State of Uttarakhand. Furthermore, option is such a thing that the same, unless revoked expressly in exercise of right to do so, question of giving a contrary option does not arise. Therefore, petitioner had opted only for the State of Uttarakhand. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner had also opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh which may not be a valid option in the eye of law. The fact also remains that these options were considered by the Central Government in consultation with the State Advisory Committee and when finding that the subsequent option of the petitioner is for Uttar Pradesh, a tentative decision was taken to allocate the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. This tentative decision was not called in question. There is not a single whisper in the body of the petition in relation to the tentative list of allocation. Since there was no objection on the part of the petitioner to the tentative decision to allocate the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Central Government has finally allocated the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to petitioner, he was not aware when such final allocation was made. According to him, he was not aware of final allotment of his cadre and, at the same time, no information was given to him about final allotment. While, having had said so in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioner in the same paragraph that there were very few people serving on the posts of Junior Clerk in Medical Department, who, opted for Uttarakhand State, as compared to the number of posts which were available after accommodating Hill Sub-Cadre employees, consequently, all Junior Clerks, who had opted for Uttarakhand, were finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand by the Central Government. The very statement of no knowledge of the petitioner and having received no information, as regards final allocation, are belied by the statements made by the petitioner in the selfsame paragraph. While having had stated that he opted on 4th October, 2000 for the State of Uttarakhand in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that in view of certain family problems, petitioner was compelled to submit a second option in which he had expressed his desire to serve in the successor State of Uttar Pradesh. With that, he has contended that the second option is of no legal consequence as the option once given was final and no one was permitted to give a second thought to his option.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, clear that the petitioner first gave an option for the State of Uttarakhand on 4th October, 2000, and thereafter due to some family problems, he altered his option for the State of Uttar Pradesh on 23rd December, 2000 and since then remained silent over the matter. In consequence whereof, when in the tentative allocation list for the State of Uttarakhand the name of the petitioner did not feature, he did not raise any objection and thereby held out to the Central Government that his second option, which has been accepted, though, in law, could not be accepted, he is grateful to the Union of India. Now he is purporting to take a different stand. Petitioner himself made the Central Government to allocate him to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The actions of the Union of India, highlighted in the writ petition, are based on the actions of the petitioner and, accordingly, we are unable to do anything.

The writ petition is dismissed.