BIBHUTI ANAND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ applications the facts and prayer of the petitioners are identical. The sole petitioner of the first case and the five petitioners of the second case pray for a direction to the respondents to issue them appointment letters, in view of their selection and empanelment for engagement as Specialist Dental Doctors in the district of Rohtas, and for their posting and allowing them to join. Brief facts are that an advertisement was published under the signature of District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Health Committee, Rohtas, inviting, applications for employment of Specialist Dental Doctors (Annexure-1). The advertisement showed the vacancies as 21, out of which 10 were for general category and the rest were for reserved category. Petitioners and others applied and a select list was prepared under the signature of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary of the District Health Society, Rohtas (Annexure-2) in which sole petitioner of the first case and first three petitioners of the second case were included under general category and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 of the second case were included under reserved category. The advertisement stipulated that, out of the panel for appointment of 21 such doctors, appointment were to be made as per the availability of dental chairs and no candidate was to have a claim for his appointment only on the basis of being empanelled. Since only five dental chairs were available in the district, first five candidates from the said select list were appointed by memo no. 584 dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure-3). Later on in its meeting dated 17.9.2011, the Executive Committee of the Society, in the light of the request of the remaining empanelled Dental Doctors, resolved that, if they furnished an affidavit that they would themselves arrange dental chairs, steps be taken for their posting. Petitioners came to know about the said decision and, vide Annexure-5 series of both the writ applications, submitted applications that they were ready to put up their dental chairs. Later on, vide Annexure-6 series of both the writ applications, the petitioners filed their affidavits also, dated 11.1.2012 and 12.1.2012, in this regard. No action having been taken by the respondents, petitioners filed their representation before the Health Minister on 17.1.2012, which was forwarded by the Health Minister to the Executive Director of the State Health Society, vide Annexure-7. By enclosing Annexure-8 series, petitioners claim that, in other districts, dental doctors have been engaged on their furnishing affidavit that they were ready to arrange and put up dental chairs at their own cost. Hence, petitioners claim discrimination and application of doctrine of promissory estoppel against the respondents to pray for a direction to them to issue them appointment letters and post them.

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed in the first case which covers the case of the petitioners of both the writ applications. Apart from other averments, some important facts disclosed therein are that though the decision was taken by the District Health Society on 17.9.2011 to post those dental doctors, who were willing to manage dental chairs on their own, but the said resolution was withdrawn by the Executive Committee of the Society later on in its meeting dated 10.1.2012, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-A. A letter of the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman of the District Health Society, addressed to the Principal Secretary of the Department dated 4.2.2012, annexed as Annexure-B, do show that guidelines were sought for from him in respect of joining of the selected dental doctors. Thereafter a letter of the Department, addressed to all Civil Surgeons, dated 23.2.2012, annexed as Annexure-C with the counter affidavit, shows that the State Government has put up a ban in fresh engagement of dental doctors on contract basis or on honorarium, till the posts are sanctioned by the Department.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, once the Society had resolved to engage the selected doctors, if they furnished their affidavits that they were ready to arrange their dental chairs themselves, it was estopped from refusing to engage them, if they had accepted the said terms and furnished their affidavits accordingly. He also submits that, in other districts, in identical circumstances, the selected dental doctors have been engaged on such undertakings on affidavit. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Director, SCTI for Medical Science and Technology and Anr. vs. M. Pushkaran, 2008 1 SCC 448] and particularly placed reliance on paragraphs 13, 14 and 18 thereof.