ASUTOSH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners pray for quashing of Annexure-6. This annexure is a copy of an advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) inviting application for the post of Drug Inspectors. The petitioners also pray that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Drug Inspectors on regular basis in pursuance of the recommendation of the Commission contained in Annexure-2.

(2.) The facts as set out in the writ application may be compactly stated. In pursuance of an advertisement the petitioners were appointed as Drug Inspectors for a period of six months on ad hoc basis on 10th March, 1975. This appointment was extended from time to time. In the year 1977 the post of Drug Inspectors were again advertised. The Commission, after holding interview, recommended eighteen names, including those of the petitioners, for regular appointment for the post of Drug Inspectors. A copy of the letter of the Commission dated 19th September, 1977, making the recommendation aforesaid, is Annexure-2. But before making the aforesad recommendations certain events took place which have been narrated in the writ petition. It is stated that by letter dated 26th August, 1977 the Commission enquired from the Health Commissioner as to whether the degree granted by the Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B. I T., Mesra) is recognised by the State Government. This querry was answered by the Health Commissioner on the same day as the Commission sent its recommendation to the State Government, namely, 19th September, 1977. In the letter addressed by the Health Commissioner to the Commission it was stated that the Bihar Government recognises the pharmacy degree granted by the B. I. T., Mesra and other Pharmacy Colleges mentioned in the said letter. A copy of the letter of the Health Commissioner is Annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. There was some correspondence between the State Government and the Commission in relation to the recommendation made by the Commission. The point of view of the State Government was that candidates who had obtained Pharmacy degree having completed their course in B. I. T., Mesra, were also eligible for appointment to the post of Drug Inspectors. The Commission, however, expressed its inability to reconsider its recommendation but stated in its letter dated 11th July, 1978, (a copy whereof is Annexure L to the counter affidavit aforesaid) that if the department so wants it can re advertise the posts. After the receipt of the letter aforesaid the Commission was requested to re-advertise the post of Drug Inspectors by a letter dated 22nd March, 1979. It is, thereafter, that the advertisement (Annexure-6, dated 12th July, 1979) has been issued.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the advertisement of the posts under annexure 6 was an arbitrary action inasmuch as the State Government could not have asked the Commission to advertise the post. The petitioners, it is contended, were entitled to be appointed on the basis of the recommendation made in Annexure 2.