IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18938 of 2008 SMT.RENU SAHA @ RENU SAHA, D/O SRI LAXMAN PRASAD SAHA, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-KASBA, DISTRICT-PURNEA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT C/O SRI DHARMENDRA PD.SAHA, RAJ NAGAR, DAK BANGALA CHOWK, P.S. AND DISTRICT-PURNEA. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PURNEA. 4. KUMAR NATH JHA, S/O SRI KAMESHWAR JHA, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-BARAIYA BAZAR, NIRMALI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. 5. DHIRENDRA KUMAR JHA, S/O SRI KHELA NAND JHA, R/O PARWATI HAT BHATTA BAZAR, PURNEA. 6. AWADHASH KUMAR MISHRA, S/O LATE CHEDI LAL, R/O SULAPUR MAHESHPUR, KATIHAR. 7. DILIP KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI BIPIN BIHARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND POST-MALDIHA BARHARA KOTI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 23.11.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously tried to make out a case that the case of the petitioner is similar to those who had moved this Court earlier and in whose cases the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.297 of 2011 allowed them to move the One Man Commission of Justice Uday Sinha. He has also relied on an order of Justice Uday Sinha in case no.17 of 2011, arising out of the order of the said LPA. The orders have been placed before this Court by learned counsel. This Court 2 does not find any similarity in the case of the petitioner with the case of those petitioners. The case of the petitioner is based on inclusion of his name in 1982 panel on the basis of an advertisement. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since it was not a back-door appointment and due advertisement and selection process was undertaken by the authorities, petitioner deserves to be appointed on that basis. Justice Uday Sinha in his order has dealt with the facts of the case in detail, from which it transpires that 1982 panel was completely scrapped off later on and a fresh panel was prepared in 1991 from which some appointment letters were issued, but the authorities have found fault with the same also. Hence, the persons did not get any appointment. Justice Uday Sinha has found that petitioners before him did not had and do not have any appointment to their credit. Hence, he refrains from issuing any direction to the Civil Surgeon of concerned districts for appointment of the said petitioners or for restoration of their services. He simply 3 directed the Civil Surgeon to make appointments from 1991 panel. The case of the petitioner is worse. There is nothing on record to show that his name was included in 1991 panel. Had it been so he could get advantage of general direction of Justice Uday Sinha to the Civil Surgeon wherein his Lordship has directed the Civil Surgeon to proceed with the appointment from 1991 panel. From the records what appears only is that the petitioner’s name was in 1982 panel. That 1982 panel admittedly stands scrapped off. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to issue direction which may benefit the petitioner in any way. The writ application is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)