Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1024 (PAT)

Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2004-09-23

body2004
JUDGMENT C.K. PRASAD, J 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the panel prepared for appointment as Class IV employees in the Mufassil offices in the district of Banka. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that an advertisement was published inviting application for filling up the existing and anticipated vacancies of Class IV post in the Mofussil offices of Bank district. According to the advertisement, such employee having experience of 240 days prior to 1.8.1985 was to be given preference in the appointment. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, petitioners offered their candidatures claiming that they had worked for more than 240 days. It is not their claim that they had worked for 240 days prior to 1.8.1985 but their claim is that they had worked for more than 240 days after 1.8.1985 and as such entitled to be given preference in the appointment. In support of the aforesaid assertion, petitioners have placed on record the certificates purported to have been granted by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer which although certifies that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days but the certificates annexed further show that the petitioners have been paid wages ranging from three days to ten days excepting petitioner no.18 who has got the wages for 120 days. Petitioners also assert that although they had worked for more than 240 days, they were not paid the wages for all the days because, of insufficiency of fund. 3. It is relevant here to state that by letter dated 6.1.1999 (Annexure-4) the Civil surgeon wrote to the District Magistrate that persons mentioned in the list have worked for more than 240 days and paid the wages fixed by the State Government from time to time. Petitioners names find place in that. 4. It seems that earlier a list of selected candidates was prepared but finding large number of irregularities and bungling in the same, the Commissioner, by its letter dated 1.6.1999 (Annexure-6), directed for cancellation of the list and for preparation of a fresh list. Petitioners names find place in that. 4. It seems that earlier a list of selected candidates was prepared but finding large number of irregularities and bungling in the same, the Commissioner, by its letter dated 1.6.1999 (Annexure-6), directed for cancellation of the list and for preparation of a fresh list. Accordingly, a fresh provisional list was prepared and notice dated 25.8.1999 (Annexure-8), was issued inviting objections from the candidates between 26.8.1999 to 9.9.1999 in the office of the District Magistrate and it was clarified that any objection received thereafter, shall not be considered. In the panel so prepared, the names of the petitioners do not find place. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 in which it has been stated that the experience certificates filed by the petitioners are without any basis and the same have been issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer after his retirement. 6. Dr. S.N. Jha, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the petitioners, whereas the State is represented by Mr. Neeraj Kumar, JC to SC 1. 7. Petitioners although assert that they had worked for more than 240 days but they concede that the maximum number of days for which they were paid the wages varied from 3 to 10 days, excepting one petitioner who was paid wages for 120 days. According to the petitioners they were not paid wages due to lack of funds. 8. The whole controversy in the present case is as to whether petitioner had worked for more than 240 days or not and the endeavour of Mr. Jha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners is to satisfy me that, in fact, the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days. He submits that the case of the petitioners that they had worked for more than 240 days is substantiated from the letter of the Civil Surgeon dated 6.1.1999 (Annexure-4) in which it has been clearly stated that the list contains the names of such persons who had worked for more than 240 days. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. The communication shows that the persons, whose names find place in the panel, had worked for more than 240 days and have been paid their wages for that period. It is undisputed that none of the petitioners have been paid wages for 240 days. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. The communication shows that the persons, whose names find place in the panel, had worked for more than 240 days and have been paid their wages for that period. It is undisputed that none of the petitioners have been paid wages for 240 days. In fact, the certificates produced by them itself show the days for which they were paid their wages ranges from 3 to 10 days excepting one petitioner to whom wages for 120 days were paid. 9. It is interesting to note that the petitioners claim to have worked for more than 240 days but where and in what capacity they worked and the period for which they had worked have not at all been mentioned excepting a vague assertion that they had worked for more than 240 days. Further while publishing the panel, candidates aggrieved by the same, were required to file objection. Petitioners had not chosen to file any such objection but have rushed with this application. From the material placed on record, it can not be said that the petitioners have worked for more than 240 days as claimed by them. Hence, the conclusion of the respondents to that effect can not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 10. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. No cost.