KUNDAN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order of the Court, W.P.(S) No. 5985 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 4083 of 2016 were tagged together and heard along with W.P.(S) No.4674 of 2016. On 21.03.2017 noticing the decisions of the Patna High Court in "Soni Kumari and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors." and "Ranjeet Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.", the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare-respondent no.1 was directed to file an affidavit, whether in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Patna High Court, the petitioners can be appointed on the post of Multi Purpose Worker (Male) or not. This order has not been complied by the respondent no.1. No reason has been disclosed for not complying with the order passed by this Court. Least to say, conduct of the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare-respondent no.1 cannot be appreciated.

(2.) On 24.04.2017, in the above facts, the Court directed that a responsible officer of the department well-versed with the facts shall remain present in the Court with relevant records on the next date of hearing. Dr. Praveen Chandra, Director-in-Chief, Health Services is present in the Court. He states that out of 2150 advertised posts, 42 vacancies under BC-I category, 12 vacancies under BC-II category, 118 vacancies under SC category and 304 vacancies under ST category could not be filled-up, on account of unavailability of eligible candidates under these categories. The reason why vacancies in the above reserved categories could not be filled-up, is said to be unavailability of candidates with qualification of one year's experience. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services states that the relevant records have been transmitted to the Department seeking a direction how to fill-up the remaining vacancies. He admits that upon appointment under the present advertisement, any other candidate acquiring the requisite one year's experience in future is ruled out and appointment on unfilled vacancies has to be made from amongst the appearing candidates or of those who perhaps did not participate in the selection process. He informs the Court that a waiting-list for candidates under the general category has been prepared.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.-V, on instructions, states that there is no factual difference in these writ petitions. All the petitioners have acquired qualification of Intermediate in Vocational Courses. The learned counsels for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in these writ petitions is common. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order, at this stage itself.