IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13953 of 2009 BIPIN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE INDRA NATH BHANDARI, R/O VILLAGE-BODAY, P.S.- MADHEPUR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI, POSTED AS BHW, ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, GHOGHARDIA, MADHUBANI. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR- IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 3. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 27.10.2010 From memo no.1240 dated 26.06.2001 annexed as Annexure-3 with the writ application, it appears that the services of the petitioner as well as large number of employees were terminated on the ground that they have been illegally appointed as Basic Health Worker. The appointment letter of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-1, shows that the representation of the petitioner was sympathetically considered by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani and petitioner was given appointment in 1992. The appointment letter does not show that his appointment was due to exigencies of the situation or stop gap or to meet any immediate need of hands for rendering services to the affected citizens who had suffered on account 2 of flood. In paragraph 5 of the writ application, petitioner has claimed that, on the basis of some notice on notice board for immediate engagement of persons to work as Basic Health Worker, the petitioner was interviewed and was appointed, as the respondents needed hands on account of epidemic like situation emerging from the floods. This is a mere statement and the appointment letter of the petitioner does not support it. On the other hand, the same shows that it was only on the application of the petitioner that he was appointed. On the basis of this appointment he has continued for 9 years. It appears that the matter of illegal appointment of large number of employees came to the notice of the respondents. Notices were accordingly issued to show cause and thereafter their services have been terminated. Since the petitioner had continued for 9 years, it is apparent that his appointment was not a stop gap arrangement or to meet the exigencies of the situation. Apparently, this was an attempt to enter into the Government service by back door methods. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of 3 termination of the petitioner, as contained in Anneuxre-3. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered service for 9 years and, therefore, he may be given liberty to apply for his regular appointment in which his experience may be taken into consideration by the respondents and he may be given sympathetic consideration in the process of selection on that account. He submits that for this purpose the petitioner has filed representation also which is Annexure-6. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is reasonable. Therefore, the respondents are directed that as and when the process for regular appointment is taken up, petitioner will be at liberty to apply for his appointment and thereupon his case may be considered by giving him weightage for his experience and by giving him relaxation of age. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)