IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12396 of 2008 DR.AJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- Advocate for the petitioner:- 1. Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate & 2. Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha, Advocate Advocate for the State : 1. Mr. S.K.Ghose, AAG-2 2. Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, J.C. to AAG-2 Advocate for IGIMS :- 1. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate & 2. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate. Advocate for respondent no.5:- 1. Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, 2. Mr. Partha Sarthy and 3. Mr. Ritesh Kumar No.1 4 21-10-2008 Heard the parties. Petitioner came to this court with the present writ petition on 19-8-2008 with a prayer to quash memo no. 645 dated 3-6-2008 (Annexure-9) whereby respondent no.5, whom the petitioner has described as a person much junior to him was assigned the job of Director of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences ( in short I.G.I.M.S.) , Patna as Incharge or officiating Director. Petitioner was also aggrieved on account of fresh advertisement published by Government of Bihar in respect of vacancy in the post of Director of the I.G.I.M.S. The advertisement has been annexed as Annexure12. During the pendency of the writ petition when the selection process pursuant to fresh advertisement under challenge was under progress, petitioner obtained an interim order that any development in the - 2 - meanwhile will be subject to the result of the writ application. This order was passed on 30th September, 2008. Today I.A. No. 6197/2008 has been pressed through which petitioner has challenged an order contained in memo no. 4550/Administration dated 10-10-2008 (Annexur-23)whereby the Deputy Director ( Administration ) of I.G.I.M.S. has issued office order that petitioner’s resignation has been accepted with effect from 10-10-2008 as per his request through letter dated 3-6-2008. That order also mentions subsequent letters from the petitioner dated 27-9-2008 and 1-10-2008 ( Annexure-22). The letter dated 27-9-2008 ( Annexure-21) shows that petitioner withdrew his offer of resignation much prior to 10-10-2008 by intimating that the offer shall be valid only six weeks after decision in the present dispute by this court. So far as prayers made in the original writ petition are concerned, this court finds that in law the competent authority have the legal right to cancel a selection process before it has culminated in actual appointment. The issue raised before this court on behalf of petitioner is that such cancellation of selection process in the present case has not been made for good and reasonable reasons. The counter- affidavit and the extract of the files show that two grounds have been taken by the authorities for canceling the selection process in which petitioner was recommended as the only candidate by the Selection Committee. The first reason is that as per the provisions of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1984 the Selection Board had to recommend three names as per merit and secondly that the - 3 - provisions of Section 12 of the said Act were subsequently amended with effect from 13-2-2008 and as per amended provisions another selection body consisting of different functionaries is to make the selection in question. There is no difficulty in holding that the Selection Committee was required to recommend three names in order of merit but it had recommended the single name of the petitioner. There could have been a course open for the I.G.I.M.S. and the State to ask the Selection Committee to recommend two more names but as noticed earlier on account of statutory amendment the Selection Committee itself got varied or changed and hence after 13-2-2008 it could not have been possible to get the defect removed by the earlier Sel;ection Committee as it was replaced by another committee on account of amendment in the Act. In the facts of the case the reasons given above cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable or unfair. In such circumstances the cancellation of the selection process and issuance of fresh advertisement need no interference. Although the petitioner has appeared in subsequent selection process under protest but it is expected that his candidature shall also be considered fairly, in accordance with law without any prejudice on account of the writ petition. So far as appointment of Incharge Director or officiating Director is concerned, this court is not inclined to go into the said controversy at this juncture when the selection process for the post of - 4 - Naresh Director has made considerable advance and both the, petitioner and respondent no.5 are under consideration. So far as prayer made in I.A.No. 6197/2008 is concerned , this court is of the view that petitioner’s offer of resignation was no longer available before the authorities and hence acceptance of so called offer of resignation by impugned order contained in annexure 23 is found to be against law and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is disposed of. It is expected that the process of selecting the Director of the Institute , as per Law, shall be completed expeditiously , preferably within four weeks. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)