IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14296 of 2006 CHANDESHWAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04 04.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State Health Society and private respondent No.5. The original controversy with regard to the issue of Madhyama being equivalent to matriculation or not, for appointment on the post of “Dresser” no more remains relevant and at this stage has become academic. The Court, therefore, does not consider it necessary to decide the same, which may be considered properly at a suitable time and occasion. Suffice it to say that in pursuance of an advertisement published by the State Health Society for appointment of “Dressers” on contractual basis for a period of one year only, specified in the advertisement and the letter of appointment of Respondent No.5, that the contract was not extendable under any circumstances, Respondent No.5 came to be appointed as such on 14.10.2006. The tenure in terms of the advertisement and the letter of appointment expired on 13.10.2007. A fresh advertisement for appointment on contract basis was published on 04.06.2007 before expiry - 2 - of the contract term of Respondent No.5 when there was no occasion for him to apply since his contract tenure was already subsisting till 13.10.2007. Be that as it may, it is the contention of Respondent No.5 that he applied in response to the fresh advertisement, when by giving a gap of one month, his tenure has been extended for one year which shall expire on 13.10.2008. In support thereof Annexure R-7 has been annexed to the counter affidavit of the Respondent No.5.It refers to the initial joining of the respondent No.5 for one year on 14.10.2006. No order of extension of the services of respondent no.5 has been brought on record. Annexure R-7 bearing memo no.3362 dated 14.10.2006 has lost its force on 13.10.2007. The counter affidavit of respondent no.5 makes no pleadings of the number of applications received and persons considered in pursuance of the fresh advertisement when he came to be selected. The writ application was filed on 23.11.2006. The matter has been adjourned in May, 2007 and May 2008. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of official respondent no.4 only under whom respondent no.5 is employee. Respondent no.4 is a member of the respondent no.3 societies and today adjournment is prayed for by respondent no.3 to file another counter - 3 - affidavit. The Court is satisfied that the attempt is only to delay the case. It declines such prayer. This court from the materials placed on record by the parties is not satisfied that the continuance of Respondent no.5 after his initial appointment for tenure of one year only is in accordance with law. However, since no positive conclusion is possible at this stage, this Court directs respondent no.3 to place the entire records with regard to the appointment/re-appointment of Respondent no.5, in response to the advertisement dated 04.06.2007 before respondent no.2 within a period of one week from today . This order has been passed in presence of the counsel for the respondent no.3 and 4. This Court requires respondent no.2 to examine the records himself and pass appropriate orders thereupon within a maximum period of one week from the date that the records are laid before him. The writ application stands disposed off accordingly. In the event that respondent no.2 records his satisfaction by giving reasons for absence of any fresh appointment, in accordance with law, of respondent no.5 under the advertisement dated 04.06.2007, appropriate direction shall then be issued by the State respondent for - 4 - recovery of the honorarium /stipend paid to the respondent no.5 from those who made the appointment. A copy of the order be given to the State Health Society, Respondent no.3. Sym ( Navin Sinha,J.)