MANJU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this batch of writ petitions relates to appointment of Auxiliary Nurses and Midwives (ANM). THE dispute precisely is whether appointment should be made as per the procedure existing prior to 10.6.1996 or on the basis of the written examination etc. as prescribed by resolution dated 10.6.1996. THE case of the petitioners is that as the vacancies in question are of the earlier period they should be filled as per the old procedure and not on the basis of the competitive examination.

(2.) THE cases came up earlier before one of us (S.N. Jha, J.) sitting singly, in course of hearing in support of the contention on behalf of the petitioners reliance was placed on orders in which direction was issued to fill the vacancies in accordance with the old procedure. THE Court expressed reservation about the correctness of the orders but as sitting singly different order could not be passed, by order dated 1.3.2002 the cases were referred to Division Bench and that is how these cases came up for hearing before this Bench. It may be stated here that no objection was raised when the hearing was taken up by this Bench considering that the cases had been referred to Division Bench by a speaking order.

(3.) DR. Amar Nath Singh who argued first for the petitioners on CWJC No. 12676/2001 referred to different orders of this Court wherein directions were issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners. I propose to specifically refer to only one of them passed by the Division Bench in CWJC No. 5410/92 and analogous cases. He also referred to certain letters of the Health Department in the matter of appointment of ANMs, but apparently they were issued pursuant to the directions of this Court. Shri Aditya Narain Singh in CWJC No. 11779/2001 submitted that 33 candidates were selected for training, out of whom those placed below were appointed while the petitioners were by passed. Admittedly this was done pursuant to the order of this Court. Not being an independent decision of the Health Department the petitioners cannot make any grievance. The question as to whether on the ground that candidates placed below were appointed, the petitioners too should be appointed would depend on the decision as to the procedure or modality of appointment, for if the appointments are to be made on the basis of written examination as provided in the resolution dated 10.6.1996, any direction for appointment of the petitioners without appearing at the written examination would amount to continuing the illegality committed earlier. That would be against the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution. Shri K.K. Mandal in CWJC Nos. 1061, 1916 and 7842 of 2001 submitted that the vacancies existing at the time when the process of selection commenced should be filled by the then existing procedure. He submitted that all that the petitioners want is to complete the process which had begun.