Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1498 (PAT)

Pankaj Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar

2011-07-20

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.6.2011, issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Society, Katihar by which the petitioner's contract for Kalazar Technical Supervisor (KTS) has been terminated and also for other consequential reliefs. 3. The petitioner along with other candidates applied for appointment on the post of KTS. A merit list was prepared and the petitioner, being placed at SI. No. 2 of the merit list in general category, was appointed and thereafter submitted his joining on 19.3.2010. Subsequently, one Abhinav Kumar made a complaint that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the advertisement and the qualifications fixed for the purpose of appointment. After getting the matter enquired into it was found that persons having better qualifications and entitled to priority in the appointment on the basis of qualification fixed, were placed in the waiting list whereas the petitioner was appointed. Accordingly, the contract of the petitioner has been cancelled by order dated 11.6.2011 of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Society, Katihar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had the qualification of Biology in Class-12 and was a graduate in arts and he had 8 years experience in the field of health. It is submitted by learned counsel that the basic requirement for appointment is graduate and the petitioner having the said qualification and having obtained a total 207 marks was entitled to be placed at SI. No. 2 in the merit list of general category and given the appointment. It is also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry held behind the back of the petitioner is wrong and for the said reason also the order dated 11.6.2011 should be quashed. 5. From the letter bearing memo no. 13120 dated 25.11.2009 of the State Health Society, Bihar in which the process of appointment and qualification, etc. for KTS has been laid down, it is to be found that the qualification for KTS candidates is graduate in which graduate in Biology are to be given priority. 5. From the letter bearing memo no. 13120 dated 25.11.2009 of the State Health Society, Bihar in which the process of appointment and qualification, etc. for KTS has been laid down, it is to be found that the qualification for KTS candidates is graduate in which graduate in Biology are to be given priority. If candidates of the said Qualification are not available, then such graduates who have passed with science in class-12 can be considered for selection; such candidates who had previous experience in health related programmes are to be given preference. 6. From the perusal of the said notification, although the same is not happily worded, the purport of the same is clear that if graduates with Biology are available then they should be appointed and in the absence of graduate in Biology such graduates who had passed with science in Class-12 can be considered for appointment. And preference is to be given to those who have previous experience of health related programmes. 7. From the perusal of the merit list it is evident that there were a large number of candidates in the waiting list who were graduate with Biology. Thus the petitioner who is not graduate with Biology, could not at all have been considered for appointment in the presence of such candidates who are graduates with Biology. It is apparent that the merit list has been prepared in a most negligent or illegal manner to include the petitioner at SI. No.2 of the same, whereas if he is not having the qualification of graduate in Biology, he could have only found place in the merit list below all such candidates who were graduate with Biology. The question of experience can only be considered after the basic educational qualification is satisfied in the manner it is required by the letter dated 25.11.2009. 8. Thus, this Court does not find that the impugned order dated 11.6.2011 suffers from any infirmity and has only undone the wrong which had been done at the time of appointment, contrary to the qualifications laid down by the State Health Society. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of principles of natural justice has only to be noted to be rejected. The principles of natural justice cannot be invoked only for its own sake. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of principles of natural justice has only to be noted to be rejected. The principles of natural justice cannot be invoked only for its own sake. The person must also show that a real prejudice has been caused to him by non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is unable to show before this Court that any such prejudice has been caused as initially learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the entire case on the merits and was unable to satisfy this Court that there can be any other interpretation of the qualifications laid down in the letter dated 25.11.2009 of the State Health Society. Thus, setting aside the order merely on the ground that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings conducted behind the back of the petitioner can be of no avail to him in the absence of any real prejudice caused to him. 10. The writ petition is thus devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.