AJAY PRATAP Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification of the Health Department contained in its memo No. 219 (17) dated 15th July, 19% by which his posting as Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in the Patna Medical College Hospital (for short, PMCH) has been cancelled. He has made out a case that even though his posting against the aforesaid post was quashed by this Court in CWJC No. 9806 of 1992, in view of the judgment of this Court in CWJC Nos. 261 of 1992 and 1094 of 1991, holding that award of 'rural points' was arbitrary, and as per revised panel prepared in the light of the said judgment, he was re-posted on the post (of Assistant Professor, Neo- Natology, PMCH), but the same has been cancelled without any opportunity of hearing to him. The dispute relating to appointment of Assistant Professor in Neo-Natology from the 1990 panel has rather long history. It is unfortunate that the full material facts have not been stated in the writ petition nor any person likely to be affected by the result of this case has been made party. One Dr. Raja Ram Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'intervenor') has filed intervention application (IA No. 550 of 19%) stating the relevant missing facts. The facts of the case, as disclosed in the said intervention-application as well as the writ petition, may shortly be stated as follows.

(2.) On 22nd May, 1990 advertisement was published inviting applications for preparation of panel with respect to junior teaching posts in different medical colleges and hospitals of the State. A panel, commonly known as '1990 Panel', was prepared in the light of the terms and conditions of the said advertisement. While the petitioner was placed at sl. No. 10 the intervenor was placed at sl. No. 4 in the said panel. We are not concerned with the other empanelists for the purpose of this case. A brief reference to some of them, however, shall be made later at the appropriate place in this judgment. Despite the lower placement, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in PMCH on 2nd September, 1992. His appointment/posting was challenged by the intervenor and one Dr. Neelam Verma (placed at sl. No. 5 in the aforesaid '1990 Panel') in CWJC Nos. 9806 of 1992 and 6589 of 1993, respectively. By common judgment and order dated 28th February, 1994 this Court quashed the impugned notification dated 2nd September, 1992. The respondents were directed to take fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the finding recorded in the judgment within a period of 60 days. It may be useful to quote a passage from the aforesaid judgment as hereunder:- "17. The panel clearly showed respondent Dr. Ajay Pratap at serial No. 10 and the petitioner Dr Raja Ram Prasad Singh against serial No. 4 and petitioner Dr. Neelam Verma at serial No. 5. Nothing was submitted by the Respondents that the marks were incorrectly allotted to these petitioners. Respondent Dr. Ajay Pratap was admittedly placed much below the petitioners. Even the authorities in the Health Department who were recording the minutes as contained in Annexure-5 had not supported the claim of respondent Dr. Ajay Pratap earlier. Thus I do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Mahto but find merit in the submissions of Mr. Sinha and Mr. Singh and accept them."

(3.) In the meantime, it appears that a dispute arose relating to 'rural points'. In the aforesaid advertisement, stipulation had been made, as before, for awarding the 'rural points' in respect of postings in 'rural' areas. One Dr. Sheela Sinha (placed at sl. No. 2 in the aforesaid '1990 Panel') filed CWJC No. 1094 of 1991. That writ petition was heard along with CWJC No. 261 of 1992 preferred by one Dr. Rameshwar Prasad (placed at sl. No. 3 in the '1990 Panel') and the intervenor herein. According to the intervenor, what the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 261 of 1992 had questioned was awarding points to respondent No. 4 (of that case) with respect to her post graduate degree obtained by her from United Kingdom and with respect to her posting as Registrar Whether awarding 'rural points' was correct or not, was not the subject matter of that writ petition. However, both the writ petitions were decided by common judgment dated 20th May, 1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that rural posting was an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of appointment to the junior teaching post and therefore giving points on the basis of such posting was arbitrary. The aforesaid judgment, was later considered and explained by a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was a member) in CWJC Nos. 7757 of 1991 and 8293 of 1991. It was held, vide judgment dated 27th April, 1995, that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge could only have prospective effect. Although the State Government had consequently issued corrigendum and deleted the relevant clause from the Advertisement, such decision could not have any retrospective effect so as to take away the consequences or the benefits of rural posting. Another learned Single Judge of this Court took the same view in CWJC No. 9721 of 1994 decided on 28th May, 1995. However, it appears, the '1990 Panel' had been revised in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge aforesaid in the meantime and the petitioner was again appointed/posted as Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in PMCH on 6th July, 1995.