Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1019 (PAT)

Chiranjeev Khandelwal v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-16

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Mr.Ashok Kr. Singh, S.C. 3, was also required to be present at the court. He is present at the request of the court. 3. An intervenor challenges the order on the writ petition. The issue is about selection of Professor in the Department of Gastro-intestinal Surgery in Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science (in short "IGIMS"). 4. From a perusal of the record and the order on the writ petitions, CWJC Nos. 1182, 4615 & 6228 of 2003. it is clear that the learned Judge has left out an embargo by the State Government so that the selection process could proceed and the posts could be filled at the IGIMS in the disciplines concerned. After the decision on the writ petitions, the process of selection will be initiated to conclude. 5. The appellant was an intervenor. In so far as he is concerned, the court has given plausible reasons as to why his application was premature. He is yet to be considered. The learned Judge has recorded that "his objections have not been overruled by the Board of Governors and his case is yet to be considered by the Board of Governors as he is also one of the applicants for the post of Professor of G.I. Surgery and, therefore, this writ application is liable to be dismissed as premature". 6. The contention on the appeal is that the Board of Governors has the presence of Professor Dr. T.K. Chattopadhyay and that he was not an empanelled expert. The court did inquire from the learned counsel whether Professor Dr. T.K Chattopadhyay was not an expert or not an empanelled expert as the field of Professor Dr. T.K. Chattopadhyay is apparently the same as of the appellant intervenor-petitioner. In the circumstances, the fact that Professor Dr. T.K. Chattopadhyay may not be empanelled is not a major issue. The appellants counsel himself answered the question that he is an expert in the very field in which he is being interviewed. 7. This process of selection must go on thereafter so that the vacant posts at the IGIMS are filled up. The appellant, in any case. is under consideration before the Board of Governors. The results are yet awaited. At this stage, it will not be appropriate for the court to see anything on merits. 8. Dismissed.