Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1269 (PAT)

Pankaj Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar

2013-10-30

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORAL ORDER (Per: Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 20th July 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 10072 of 2011. 2. It appears that under a scheme for eradication of malaria, the State Health Committee, Bihar had sanctioned six posts of Kalazar Technical Supervisor (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supervisor’) in each district of the State of Bihar on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 10,000/-. On perusal of the sanction, it appears that the said programme was funded by the World Health Organization. Candidates were required to possess a Degree in Science (Biology). It further provided that in case the required Graduates in Science (Biology) were not available, a Graduate who had passed 12th Standard examination with Science may be considered for appointment. The said sanction also said that a person with experience be given precedence. Pursuant to the said sanction, under order dated 16th March 2010 made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Committee, Katihar, some six persons including the appellant were appointed as the Supervisor for a period of one year on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. It appears that since the appointment of the appellant, a complaint was made that although the eligible candidates with requisite qualification of Degree in Science (Biology) were available, the candidates having lesser qualification (i.e. not a Degree in Science with Biology) were selected and appointed. The said complaint was scrutinized by the District Collector, Katihar. Under order dated 4th April 2011, the District Collector, Katihar sustained the complaint made against the appointment of the appellant. It was observed that the appellant was given a notice on 15th March 2011 to submit his case or to produce any evidence; that after going through the record, the appointment of the appellant was found to be illegal inasmuch as he did not possess the requisite qualification of a Degree in Science (Biology) whereas the candidates possessing the said qualification of Degree in Science (Biology) were indeed available. Pursuant to the said finding, the service of the appellant has been terminated. Therefore, the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bal Krishna Mishra has appeared for the appellant. Mr. Pursuant to the said finding, the service of the appellant has been terminated. Therefore, the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bal Krishna Mishra has appeared for the appellant. Mr. Mishra has submitted that the termination of the service of the appellant was vitiated for violation of the principle of natural justice. He has also submitted that neither the learned single Judge nor the authority below noticed that the persons with experience were required to be given precedence. It was under the said clause that the appellant had been appointed having regard to his long experience in Health Services. 5. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Mishra. The report made by the District Collector, Katihar is self-explanatory. It does record that the notice was given to the appellant on 15th March 2011. Once the appellant had been given the opportunity to defend his appointment, the complaint of violation of the principle of natural justice requires to be rejected outright. As to the precedence to be given to the experienced persons, we must note that the only qualification recognized was that of a Degree in Science (Biology). It must, therefore, be held that amongst the persons having Degree in Science (Biology), the persons having experience in Health Services would get precedence. In the present case, it is indisputable that the appellant does not possess the requisite qualification of a Degree in Science (Biology). The appellant, who lacked in the basic qualification, could not have been considered on the basis of his experience alone. The sanction is very specific that only in case the persons possessing Degree in Science (Biology) were not available, the persons having lesser qualification, i.e. a Graduate having passed the 12th Standard examination with Science, may be considered. Thus, the persons not possessing the qualification of Graduation in Science (Biology) had no vested right to be considered and appointed as the Supervisor. Apparently, the appellant had been given preference although the candidates having required qualification were available. If the appellant’s appointment were found to be illegal from inception and it is terminated after giving him opportunity to justify his appointment, the order does not call for interference. 6. Further, we may observe that the appointment was made on 16th March 2010 for a period of one year. If the appellant’s appointment were found to be illegal from inception and it is terminated after giving him opportunity to justify his appointment, the order does not call for interference. 6. Further, we may observe that the appointment was made on 16th March 2010 for a period of one year. By the time his service was terminated, the period of one year had already expired. The appellant, therefore, had no right to continue on the post of the Supervisor after 15th March 2011. If his services were continued after 15th March 2011, it was a fortuitous circumstance. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine.