SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitions relate to the same respondent and raised basically the same dispute, the issue of seniority and posting and, as such, with consent of parties have been taken up together for final disposal.

(2.) THE pleadings which are voluminous are complete and the parties have argued extensively on all issues arising as would be noted hereunder. In the first writ petition, that is, C.W.J.C. No.1763 of 1998, originally there were six writ petitioners. Petitioner no.4, Dr. Rajib Ratan Choudhary withdrew from the writ petition in the very beginning itself. Petitioner no.1, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, petitioner no.2, Dr. Ram Shankar Sinha, petitioner no.5, Dr. Indudhar Narain Jha and petitioner no.6, Dr. Sambhu Nath Jha are not interested in pursuing the matter, inasmuch as they have been allotted Jharkhand cadre on bifurcation of the State of Bihar. That leaves only petitioner no.3, Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi as the petitioner. Similarly amongst the four private-respondents, namely, respondent no.3, Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, respondent no.4, Dr. Ramdeo Sahu and respondent no.5, Dr. Shankar Prasad Sinha who were at Dhanbad having been allotted Jharkhand cadre, the question of their seniority has not been put to issue. That leaves respondent no.6, Dr. A.K. Gupta as the sole private-respondent.

(3.) IN the second writ petition, the ground of attack is that petitioners are in the Department of Medicine whereas respondent was in the Super Specialty Department of Cardiology at D.M.C.H. and, as such, the respondent could not be made INcharge of Department of Medicine though undisputed the respondent was much senior to these two petitioners. Briefly noticed in respect of the first writ petition, the stand of the respondent would be that notwithstanding empanelment, as petitioner has himself given up the appointment and placement offered and chose to wait for a place of his liking he forgoes his seniority. He would further submit that right in the beginning Government took a policy decision and made it known to all that seniority would be worked out on basis of period of teaching experience and petitioner never having challenged it, cannot now plead otherwise. Apart from this, it would be submitted on behalf of respondent that petitioner having been inappropriately appointed and posted at the very initial stage, much after petitioner's appointment, he cannot steal a march over respondent. Further the cadre list/gradation list is a joint cadre list /gradation list and there being no cadre bifurcation the seniority of respondent has been correctly determined. So far as the second writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 5144 of 2005 is concerned, the petitioner's assertion is that petitioner having chosen cardiology and there being a Super Specialty Department of Cardiology at D.M.C.H. respondent had to be placed therein and could not Head the Medicine Department of D.M.C.H., to which, the petitioners belong. The response of the respondent to this would be the same as in the first writ petition that there exists no separate cadre and seniority is determined by joint cadre list/joint gradation list and that there is no declared/notified Super Specialty