AWADH KISHORE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this batch of six writ petitions relates to appointment on the post of Medical Laboratory Technician in the Health Department of the Government of Bihar. The petitioners seek quashing of the panel of selected candidates and the appointments, and a direction to prepare fresh panel in accordance with law.

(2.) THE material facts are as follows. On 24.5.97 an advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment to the post of Medical Laboratory Technician from the candidates who had passed the l.Sc. or 10 Plus 2 examination and received Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLT) Training from any of the Institutes recognised by the Government of Bihar. Writ petitions being CWJC Nos. 5427/97, 8034/97 and 8051/97 were filed in this Court seeking direction to permit the candidates who had received the requisite training from the Institutes recognised by other State Governments to apply for the post. By judgment and order dated 19.1.98. the writ petitions were allowed. As a matter of fact the State Government agreed to recognise the MLT training certificates granted by Institutions recognised by the Government of India and/or other State Government provided they are equivalent to MLT certificate granted by the Institutes situate in the State of Bihar and recognised by the State Government. The Department was accordingly directed to issue corrigendum permitting the candidates who had obtained such vocational certificates, and to take steps for appointment to the post in the light of the directions made in the judgment. In the meantime, during pendency of the writ petitions, it appears, the Department had taken steps in the recruitment process. An interview programme was published, though after the judgment, on 23.1.98. fixing 3.2.98. to 7.2.98. as dates for interview. However, soon thereafter in the light of the judgment, on 7.2.98. a corrigendum was published allowing fresh opportunity to the candidates, who could not apply pursuant to the earlier advertisement but were covered by the judgment, to apply for the post by 20.2.98. Fresh interview programme for the candidates who were permitted to apply by the advertisement dated 7.2.98, was published on 12.5.98. fixing 25.5.98. to 6.6.98. as the dates for interview. It is relevant to mention here that the dates were fixed and the candidates were called for 'interview ' on the basis of first alphabets of their names in both the interview programmes, schedules. Thus as per the first interview programme published on 23.1.98. the candidates having names beginning alphabets 'A ' to 'G ' were to appear for interview on the first date, the candidates having names beginning with letters 'CH ' to 'D ' were to appear on the Equivalent Citation:2001 -PLJR -1 -226 second date and so on. Similarly, as per the second interview programme, candidates having names beginning with letter 'A ' were to be interviewed on 25.5.98. Those having names beginning from letter 'AA ' to 'J ' were to appear on 26.5.98, those having names beginning with letters 'K ' to 'CA ' were to appear on 27.5.98. and so on. A Selection Committee had been constituted in the meantime on 24.12.97. After the process of interview was over, on 16.1.99 the Selection Committee decided to consider only those candidates for appointment who had secured 25% marks i.e. 10 out of 40 for which interview had been held. In the same meeting held on 16.1.99, a panel of selected candidates numbering 181 was finalised. On 8.3.99 by Memo no. 68, 157 candidates were issued appointment letters. On 18.3.99 by Memo No. 81, the rest 24 candidates were appointed. From the record it appears that on 26.3.99 one more candidate, by name Kamlesh Kumar was appointed by Memo no. 95. It is not clear as to how, 181 selected candidates having already issued appointment letters on 8.3.99 and 18.3.99 Kamlesh Kumar was issued appointment letter. However it is not necessary to go into this aspect of the case.

(3.) IT is also relevant to mention that soon after the impugned appointments were made, on application filed by the petitioners vide lA No. 6680/99 in CWJC No. 2130/99, lA No. 6742/99 in CWJC No. 2546/99 and IA No. 6738/99 in CWJC No. 2641/99 some of the appointees were allowed to be added as respondents. In this manner 20 candidates each have been impleaded as respondents 5 to 24 in CWJC Nos. 2130/99 and 2546/99. In CWJC No. 2641/99 10 persons have been added all of whom however happen to be common to the added respondents in CWJC No. 2546/99. Thus 40 appointees out of 181 (or 182) figure as respondents in these cases. Some of them have filed counter affidavit in CWJC No. 2546/99.