Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1417 (JHR)

Dr. Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-10

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner, who is presently posted as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kuru, Lohardaga, had filed a writ petition before this Court earlier being CWJC No. 4247/2000 Rraying therein for direction to the respondents to appoint him on a teaching cadre post in any medical college in the State of Jharkhand in view of the fact that he was appointed as Resident Medical Officer in Department of Pediatrics in Patna Medical College Hospital in the year 1994 and as per the new Rule which came into force in 1997 he was entitled' to be posted in Teaching post only since he opted for Teaching Cadre in terms of the new Rule of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of noticing the fact that it was not clear as to whether the petitioner was appointed on a teaching post in accordance with the process of appointment. The writ court was of the view that the question raised by the petitioner should be decided firstly by the Secretary, Department of Health and Medical Services and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to file a representation before the Secretary, Department of Health and Medical Services and the Secretary was directed to dispose of the representation of petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his representation. When the representation was not being disposed of and similarly situated persons were being considered for appointment on the teaching post, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for direction to the respondents to treat him as a Lecturer on a teaching post. The petitioner alleges that the representation filed by him as per the direction of this Court is not being disposed of. 4. The petitioner alleges that the representation filed by him as per the direction of this Court is not being disposed of. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, wherein it has been stated that the Secretary, Department of Health and Medical Education, Government of Jharkhand has passed a reasoned order on 25.4.2006 contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit rejecting the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that when the new rule came into force the petitioner was posted in Patna Medical College Hospital at Patna and Government of Jharkhand has no paper to show that the petitioner was, in fact, had exercised option for the teaching post and that the matter relates to the State of Bihar therefore, the Government of Bihar is competent to pass appropriate order in this regard. 5. There is no dispute of the fact that in the year 1998 the petitioner was transferred to Kuru in the District of Ranchi. After bifurcation of the State now the petitioner is serving the State of Jharkhand. The only ground on which the representation of the petitioners has been rejected as it appears from Annexure-A that there was no paper with the authorities of the State of Jharkhand to show that in fact the petitioner had opted for Teaching Post in terms of the Rule of 1997 and further that in 1998 he was posted in Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna, prior to his transfer to Kuru, and, therefore, the Government of Jharkhand is not entitled to post the petitioner in Bihar. 6. The grounds for rejection of the claim of the petitioner do not stand to reasons. 7. The petitioner is not claiming that he should be posted in the State of Bihar rather his Claim is that at per the new rule which came into force w.e.f. 21.5.1997, he should be posted on a teaching post in any of the medical college in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, it appears that the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents concerned in its right perspective. On its merit, the claim of the petitioner has not been rejected by the concerned authority rather it has been rejected on the ground that State of Bihar is competent to pass any order in this regard. This approach is quite erroneous. 8. On its merit, the claim of the petitioner has not been rejected by the concerned authority rather it has been rejected on the ground that State of Bihar is competent to pass any order in this regard. This approach is quite erroneous. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is being disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation stating in detail about his claim and grievance as has been raised in this writ application alongwith all supporting documents in support thereof, before the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health & Medical Services, Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) within a period of two weeks. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the Secretary shall consider the claim in its right perspective and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. 9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.