RANBIR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions involve similar issues and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 applied for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Urology), and in C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990 the petitioner and respondent no. 4 applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology pursuant to similar advertisements published on 22.5.1990 and 30th December, 1987 respectively. After appraisal of their relative merit, respondent no. 4 in both the writ petitions were selected for appointment, and aggrieved by their selection the petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court challenging their selection and appointment. Though the facts in both the cases differ, the issues involved are similar. It would be convenient to first deal with the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 and the issues involved therein, including the issues common to both the writ petitions. Thereafter, I shall proceed to consider the facts and issues involved in C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990.

(2.) AT the threshold I may observe that after filing the writ petition, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 persisted in filing several supplementary affidavits bringing on record facts and pleas not pleaded in the writ petition. Thirteen such supplementary affidavits were filed, and the respondents also felt compelled to file their replies to those supplementary affidavits thus adding to the bulk of the brief which runs into 792 pages. This has made our task difficult, but I must appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by counsel for the parties who have sifted the facts with a view to highlight the real issues involved in these writ petitions. C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991

(3.) THE averments in the writ petition are that the petitioner having obtained his M.B.B.S. degree in 1977 and having completed the internship and house job in surgery in the year 1979, joined M.S. course in general surgery. While he was pursuing his M.S. course he was selected for appointment as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Bihar Health Service, which post he joined on 24.6.1981. The petitioner was granted study leave to complete his M.S. course and in the year 1983 the petitioner obtained the M.S. degree in general surgery. He thereafter rejoined service and on 6.6.1983 was posted as first Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Gandey in the district of Giridih, in a rural area, where he continued till 25.12.1987. On 26.12.1987 he joined the Christian Medical College, Vellore as a Registrar in the Department of Urology after obtaining leave from the Government of Bihar. He thereafter joined the M.Ch. course on 15.1.1989 in the same college for which he was granted study leave for two years and was pursuing the said course when the Government of Bihar published the advertisement in question for appointment on different posts in the different medical colleges of the State of Bihar including the posts of Assistant Professor. This advertisement was published on 25.5.1990 and related to the posts which were vacant or likely to fall vacant on or before 31st December, 1991. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Urology) and while doing so he claimed his teaching experience in the superspeciality of Urology of two years and six months. His case is that none of the candidates whose names were included in the provisional panel (Annexure/2) had the requisite teaching experience even for a period of six months in the superspeciality of Urology in an institution recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting the M.B.B.S. course. He had also mentioned that he was pursuing the M.Ch. course which he was likely to complete by March 1991.