Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 19 (PAT)

Ram Pratap Rai v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-04

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Reference may be made to orders dated 28.7.2005 and 7.12.2005. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners alongwith several persons were recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission") for their appointment in the Health Department on Class IV posts as far back as on 20th January, 2000 and out of the recommended persons, 198 persons were appointed even below the petitioners, who were at serial nos. 34 and 104. It is further submitted that the matter is still pending before the State Government, so far the petitioners are concerned on the pretext of verification of their testimonials. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Counsel had placed incorrect facts before this Court on 7.12.2005 saying that during the pendency of this application petitioner no. 1, Ram Pratap Rai, was already appointed, whereas till date he has not been appointed and the matter is still pending before the State Government, so far both the petitioners are concerned. 4. Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. 6, on the contrary, submits that the matter is pending for verification of the testimonials of the petitioners before the Commission and no sooner the testimonials are verified the petitioners would be appointed. 5. This Court on earlier occasion noticing all these facts held that the matter is being delayed by the State Government without any laches on the part of the petitioners and, thus, their seniority must be maintained. 6. It is not in dispute that several persons including the petitioners were recommended for their appointment by the Commission as far back as in the month of January 2000 itself and several persons out of the recommended persons were appointed even below the petitioners. Since the Commission recommended the names of the petitioners, there was no occasion for the Commission again to verify the testimonials, as the same could have been verified by the State Government before issuing appointment letters and how the matter now has been referred to the Commission by the State Government for verification of the testimonials is not understandable to this Court. 7. Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. 6, reiterates that the matter is pending before the Commission for verification of the testimonials. 8. 7. Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. 6, reiterates that the matter is pending before the Commission for verification of the testimonials. 8. It would be pertinent to mention here that this matter had gone up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court directed this Court to monitor the selection process, but till date the selection process is not over nor finally the petitioners have been appointed. 9. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, as referred to above, the State authorities are directed to conclude the process of selection, so far the petitioners are concerned, within a period of four weeks from today and pass necessary orders pertaining to their appointment in accordance with law 10. This order is being passed on the assumption that petitioner no. 1 has not yet been appointed. 11. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.