CHANDRA MOHAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The combatants are qualified doctors having post graduate degrees to their credit. The coveted prize is Assistant Professorship in Neuro Surgery. Driven by intense and highly competitive careerism the fight has been brought to this Court. Here the case was argued for hours at length in a no holds barred manner. At times one could not help wondering at the state of affairs that so frequently brings to this Court such acrimonious career oriented antagonisms. The hearing of the case having concluded, however this Court must confine and address itself to the questions of in eividual legal rights, their alleged intringement and their possible entorcibility. The diagnosis and the curative measures for the malady afflicting our public service system are matters for the socio-political scientists to ponder over.

(2.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seek to challenge the selection panel dated 4/8.7.1968 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Neuro Surgery. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 19-12-1987 published in the Bihar Gazette of December 30 1987, the Selection Committee prepared the pauel which is said to have been approved by the State Government on 26-9-1988. The petitioner questions this panel in so tar as it lists him (at Serial no 4, below respondents 5 6 and 7 (at Serial nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively). The challenge rests on the simple and straight forward contention that the three respondents do not fulfil the minimum eligibility criteris laid down in the advertisement for appointment as Assistant Professor, Neuro Surgery. It follows that the Selection Committee considered to empanel the three respondents wrongly and for reasons other than their merits.

(3.) The petitioner's challenge to the panel is strenuously resisted by respondents 5 and 6. Learned Advocate General, appearing tor the State, also defended the impugned panel. Respondent no, 7, however, did no show any interest in the case neither any counter-affidavit was fied on his behalf nor was he represented by anyone at the time or the hearing of the case.