SUDARSHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil review relates to the never ending controversy with regard to appointment of B.C.G. Technician and Team Leader as would appear from the very bulky records of this review application and the history associated with this litigation, which starts with the appointments made by the famous or infamous Dr. A.A. Mallick in 1983 and in 1987 onwards. Dr. Mallick was Deputy Director and Incharge of Tuberculosis Centre, Health Department, Government of Bihar and is alleged to have made at different times over 6000 appointments mostly on nonexistent posts. These appointments, after administrative enquiry, were cancelled en masse by the State Government. By the time these cancellations were effectuated, persons has worked for considerable period as B.C.G. Technician and Team Leader. The matter ultimately reached the Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1997 2 SCC 1. The Apex Court did not interfere with the en masse dismissal, but then coming to the human problem and the sociological impact issued certain directions for regularization through re-employment to the extent of the posts actually available. In the penultimate paragraph 19 of the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar , 12 point directives were issued. Point No. 6 dealt with the question as to who would be eligible for being considered for appointment. It was clearly mentioned that all persons, who were appointed by Dr. Mallick and whose appointments had been set aside irrespective of the fact whether they had moved 'the writ court or the Apex Court or not, all, would be eligible for being considered subject to the condition that they had worked at least for three years continuously. Then in point No. 7, their Lordships provided for the method of evaluation for appointment by award of marks. One of the considerations was that those people, who had earlier received training, would get two additional marks.

(2.) At this stage itself, I would notice a contention being raised on behalf of the writ petitioners, who are respondents in the review application. The order in the writ proceedings being in their favour and they being opposite parties in this review proceedings, it is urged that as per Government rules and regulations only those people, who had the requisite training, were qualified for being considered for appointment to the posts. The review petitioners, who had been selected and appointed pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, were not so trained and, therefore, were ineligible.

(3.) Having considered the matter, my short answer would be that if this contention of the writ petitioners is taken to be correct, then such people, who are not trained, could not have been considered for appointment and only those people, who had received training, could be considered. Then what was the sense in the Apex Court awarding two additional marks for the people, who had received training? If what has been submitted is to be accepted, then the said point providing for two additional marks to the people having received training makes no sense. The very fact that the Apex Court in point No. 7 states that two additional marks would be awarded to the people, who had the requisite training, presupposes that amongst the candidates eligible for being considered for appointment, there would also be candidates, who had no training and this presupposes that the people, who had no training, would also be considered for appointment.