JUNIOR DOCTOR ASSOCIATION, RANCHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS we are satisfied that Public Interest is involved, this case is entertained and heard, keeping aside the objection about the locus standi of the petitioner. Stand of the petitioner

(2.) THE grievance is that the decision to recruit and the process adopted to select the doctors on contractual basis is wrong and against public interest. As no appointments were made since 1990, the Government should have taken steps for regular appointments as has been done for appointing about ten thousand teachers through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, after creation of this new State. There is no justification for such hurry in making such ad hoc appointments in the field of public health. The cadre bifurcation pursuant to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 of the Medical Officers has almost been finalized and the tentative list has been published. The State cadre posts are sought to be filled up by District Level Selection Committees. Fixing upper age limit as 60 years is also contrary to the law regarding State services where the maximum age of a State Government servant is 58 years. The chances of unfair and improper selection at the District Level Selection Committees are more. The process of selection is faulty and a fair and proper selection is not possible. Without improving the infrastructural facilities, there is no justification for such recruitment as the object will not be achieved and the public exchequer will be burdened without corresponding gain. Buildings and basic facilities are lacking. The Government should take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in a regular manner if it is serious about providing medical facilities to the public, especially at rural level. Stand of the respondents

(3.) THE learned Advocate General submitted that in view of Article 243G read with Item 23 of Schedule XI of the Constitution of India and the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, the Panchayats are authorized to establish and maintain the health centers. The selection process is completed on 12th November, 2003. In these circumstances, he submitted that the writ petition is against public interest and should be dismissed. He also submitted that a better policy or process is no ground for interfering with the impugned recruitment. However, if any individual raises any grievances about unfair and improper selection in a particular case, then the same can be looked into. If the process of selection already undertaken in not approved by this Court, it will create problems for all.