NUTAN KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, a registered Nurse, passed her Auxiliary Nures -Mid -wife (ANM for short) in April, 1992 by securing 656 marks out of 900. Under advertisement dated 15.7.1995 (Annexure -5) for filling up 197. vacant post of ANM in the Surgency of Bettiah, the petitioner and number of others applied and appeared in interviews held on 11.8.1995. The results showed that 75 candidates in the general category were appointed and the petitioner was placed at SI. No. 77. All those 75 persons joined the services and continued to work. On 10.6.1996 the State Government changed the procedure for appointment of the ANM and directed that the concerned Depart - ment/Surgency shall send its recommendations to the BPSC and the BPSC after conducting the test/examination shall submit its results and recommendations to the concerned Surgency for appointment. It appears from the records and is also not disputed by the respondents that on subsequent verification it was found that as many as 19. candidates had submitted bogus certificates and bogus marks -sheets and could secure the appointments, those 19 persons were removed in the year 1998. The petitioner thereafter on 31.7.1999 made an application to the Civil Surgeon -cum - Chief Medical Officer, Bettiah that as the certificates of 19 appointed persons were forged and as their services have been terminated the said seats have fallen vacant and the petitioner who was at SI. No. 77 be issued order of appointment. The respondents Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medi - cal Officer did not pass any orders therefore the petitioner has come to this Court.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY the petitioner was placed at serial number 77, it is also not disputed by the respondents that 19 candidates who were appointed in the general category were removed because their certificates and the marks were forged and they had played fraud with the Department. They also admit that if these 19 persons could not be appointed on the date when appointment orders were issued then the Department in fact instead of filling 75 vacancies had filled only 56 vacancies and allowed 19. vacancies to remain alive. Their submission however, is that if the vacancies for the year 1995 or prior to it have occurred in 1998 then in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench these will have to be filled in accordance with the procedure as provided in Rules of 10.6.1996.