ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner still working on contractual basis as a Medical Officer since 10th May, 2005 under Respondent, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department on his appointment by order bearing Memo no. 489 dated 10th may, 2005 (Annexure-1), extended from time to time thereafter, is seeking regularization in service in terms of the provisions of Regularization Rules, 2011, notified by the respondent department on 12th August, 2011, Annexure-2. The eligibility conditions under Rule 4(Kha) specified that any such contractual medical officer should be in continuous contractual service for more than 5 years till the date of his regularization. Petitioner's name was also sent to J.P.S.C when such an exercise was undertaken by the respondent department as is evident from paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit of J.P.S.C. However, J.P.S.C made a request on 4th September, 2012 through letter no. 2565 to send the authenticated list and applications of the candidates as per reservation category in the given proforma. The reply of the department through letter no. 603 dated 10th November, 2012 did not contain the name of the petitioner in the said list though it contained the names of some left over candidates. Respondent J.P.S.C therefore, did not call the petitioner for interview held on various dates in April, 2013 as is the stand in paras 10 and 11 of their counter affidavit. The respondent department at para 23 of their counter affidavit admit that candidature of the petitioner was not considered on account of absence of certificate of Civil Surgeon, Koderma, which he had not sent inadvertently, as would be also evident from Annexure7 to the writ application dated 25th April, 2013 bearing Memo no. 598. The respondents however have also taken the plea of absence of the petitioner over different periods as communicated by Civil Surgeon, Koderma, on being called for by the department through letter no. 901(3) dated 3rd August, 2013. The Civil Surgeon through letter dated 8th August, 2013 bearing no. 1128 refers to the payment of contractual allowance of the petitioner for the different periods and deductions for the period of absence (Annexure-C). A detailed report was again called for from Civil Surgeon, Koderma through letter no. 1307 dated 7th September, 2013, regarding petitioner's absence and payment of contractual allowance to him. 1128 refers to the payment of contractual allowance of the petitioner for the different periods and deductions for the period of absence (Annexure-C). A detailed report was again called for from Civil Surgeon, Koderma through letter no. 1307 dated 7th September, 2013, regarding petitioner's absence and payment of contractual allowance to him. The letter dated 5th July, 2013 and the report sent thereafter vide Annexures-E & F indicate absence of the petitioner in the month of June, 2005 and 17 days in July, 2005 at his place of posting as Additional PHC, Koderma; absence for certain period from March, 2007 to October, 2008 for 19 days in four different months and certain period of absence from March, 2010 to February, 2013 in different months. By referring to the said report the respondent department has submitted that his contractual service was not continuous in terms of Rule 4(Kha) of 2011 Rules. These are the reasons for non-regularization of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case was not recommended to J.P.S.C, initially only due to want of certificate of Civil Surgeon, Koderma. Later on, it was duly supplied through Annexure7, where it is categorically stated by the respondent no. 5 that petitioner has been working on contractual basis as a Medical Officer in different Primary Health Centers in the district of Koderma since 10052005 in a regular manner. There are no departmental proceedings against him. The certificate of recommendation could not be sent earlier because of inadvertent error. The Civil Surgeon, Koderma also recommended for his regularization. It is submitted that the department has sought to supplement reasons through the counter affidavit by enclosing certain reports relating to absence of the petitioner in contractual service career of 7 years by then for certain days distributed over the period of 7 years. At no point of time, petitioner was served with any show cause for such absence nor his contractual engagement has been severed at any point of time. As a matter of fact, he continues in contractual engagement till date. The respondents have not followed the spirit of the provisions of the regularization Rules 2011 and in fact resorted on untenable hypertechnical grounds of absence for certain days or period in his entire contractual service to infer that he does not fulfill the requirement of continuous service for being recommended and regularized in the respondent department. The respondents have not followed the spirit of the provisions of the regularization Rules 2011 and in fact resorted on untenable hypertechnical grounds of absence for certain days or period in his entire contractual service to infer that he does not fulfill the requirement of continuous service for being recommended and regularized in the respondent department. It is prayed that the respondent department and J.P.S.C may be issued proper directions to consider the petitioner's case on its own merit in accordance with the Rules of 2011 and regularize his service under the department as he satisfies the mandatory conditions required under the Rules. 4. Counsel for the Respondent-State has, in response, relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit, the details of which have already been referred to in the forgoing paragraphs of the judgment. He also submits that because of his absence, he cannot be treated as in continuous service for more than 5 years to be entitled for regularization. He however is not in a position to dispute that respondent no. 5, Civil Surgeon, Koderma has issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner at Annexure-7 clearly stating that petitioner has been in continuous service as contractual doctor in the said district at different PHC without any charges alleged against him over the period of his engagement. 5. Counsel for J.P.S.C submits that its role is confined to following the recruitment process based upon the list of such doctors recommended by the respondent department. Since there was no recommendation in favour of the petitioner, J.P.S.C cannot be accused of not considering the petitioner's case. The respondent department may not have found his service continuous being one of the reasons for not recommending him. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Rahul vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 6641 of 2013 dated 12th May, 2015. He submits that in the said case also, on account of certain period of absence the said contractual doctor was not regularized by the respondent department. His name had been recommended by the J.P.S.C and was also interviewed. Rahul vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 6641 of 2013 dated 12th May, 2015. He submits that in the said case also, on account of certain period of absence the said contractual doctor was not regularized by the respondent department. His name had been recommended by the J.P.S.C and was also interviewed. It is submitted that this Court had been pleased to interpret the provisions of Rule 4(Kha) and arrived at a view that since there was no severance of employer-employee relationship between department and the said doctor, even in contractual engagement, on account of such leave or absence, the respondents were not justified in treating his service as not continuous for refusing regularization. It is submitted that the period of absence of the petitioner herein are in such periods also where contractual doctors had resorted to strike, petitioner being one of them. However, he submits that since the respondent no. 5 has clearly certified the continuous service in favour of the petitioner and the absence of the said certificate being the only reason for not sending his name to the respondent J.P.S.C, other grounds of absence should not be made a basis to deny regularization to him when he still serving in government without any complaint. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The factual foundation of the case noticed hereinabove leads to be impression that petitioner's case for regularization was not recommended initially on account of absence of certificate of controlling authority respondent no. 5. It was however found thereafter that petitioner had been absent during different periods for certain days in a total service of 7 years till 2012. No chargesheet was either issued upon him for such absence. As a matter of fact, there is no order to show that the contractual engagement of the petitioner had been severed on account of such absence. Petitioner has been paid salary over the period of his contractual engagement except certain periods of absence for a number of days. In any case petitioner's engagement as accepted by the respondent no. 5 also cannot be said to have been interrupted because of such absence. Petitioner has been paid salary over the period of his contractual engagement except certain periods of absence for a number of days. In any case petitioner's engagement as accepted by the respondent no. 5 also cannot be said to have been interrupted because of such absence. If his service was continuous from the date of his engagement on 10th May, 2005 till the regularization exercise was undertaken by the respondent department through the J.P.S.C, there is no reason why petitioner should have been denied due consideration by the respondent. The grounds taken by the respondent therefore do not merit acceptance. 8. On consideration of the aforesaid facts the petitioner's case appears to be similar to that of the case of Dr. Rahul vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Supra). 9. In view of the discussions made and the reasons recorded hereinabove petitioner's case deserves to be considered for regularization. The respondent department would forward the case of the petitioner to J.P.S.C along with all necessary documents including the certificate at Annexure-7 issued by the respondent no. 5, as required in the prescribed format, which is reported to have been already fulfilled by the petitioner for such consideration within a period of 4 weeks. The respondent J.P.S.C would consider the petitioner's case in terms of Regularization Rules, 2011 within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. Dependent upon such consideration, if the case of the petitioner is found fit and eligible in all terms under the Rule 2011, then appropriate recommendation be made to the respondent department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi for passing a final order of regularization of the petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to say the respondent department would take a decision on such recommendation within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent and the manner indicated hereinabove.