IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9793 of 2008 Dr.Jai Prakash Sharma, S/O Late Raghav Sharan Sharma, resident of village and P.O. Sikarpur, P.S. Majhaulia, District- West Champaran, Bihar. …………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.The Director (Indigenous Medicines), Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4.The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 through its Secretary 5.The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna-800001. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 5. 27/07/2011 From Annexure-10, it appears that in the light of the interim orders passed in C.W.J.C.No.2531 of 1998 and C.W.J.C.No.3617 of 1998, names of three candidates, namely, S.Bernadeth Ezil Rany, present petitioner (Jai Prakash Sharma) and Dinanath Pandit were kept in abeyance as they were not holding required Internship Certificate. Writ applications of Dinanath Pandit and S.Bernadeth Ezil Rany were allowed by this Court by order dated 25.4.2008 passed in their writ application, namely, C.W.J.C.No.7983 of 1999 and C.W.J.C.No.9112 2 of 1999, with a direction to the Commission to recommend their names for appointment pursuant to Advertisement No.9 of 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the Commission has complied with the orders of this Court and has recommended their names and those two candidates have already joined their posts. He submits that although case of the present petitioner was identical to the said two candidates, whose cases were kept in abeyance on identical ground, Commission has not recommended the name of the petitioner on the ground that no order was passed by this Court in his favour specifically. Hence, this writ application has been filed for such a direction. Learned counsel for the Commission appears and files counter affidavit. He places reliance on the pleadings made therein. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit are reproduced hrerein : “14. That as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 25th April, 2008, the names of the petitioners of CWJC No.7983/99, Sri Dinanath Pandit and of CWJC No.9112/99, Smt. S.B.E.Rani were recommended for appointment on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak by the Commission vide its letter no.404/PSC, 3 dated 16.3.2009. 15. That in this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Court in its order dated 25.4.2008 did not give any direction for the petitioner, Dr.Jaiprakash Sharma and under such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner is not tenable at the level of the respondent Commission.” The aforesaid pleadings makes it clear that the Commission has taken a stand that since in the earlier judgment there was no direction by this Court in respect of the present petitioner, grievance of the petitioner is not tenable at the level of the Commission. This peculiar stand of the Commission has given rise to otherwise unnecessary litigation before this Court. If the Commission would have appreciated that the issue has been decided by the Court in respect of two candidates and the petitioner is also squarely covered by that, the Commission, in normal course, ought to have recommended the name of the petitioner also. That having not been done, petitioner was compelled to file writ application. Considering the facts and circumstances and the order passed by this Court earlier, as referred to above, this Court finds that 4 there is no distinguishing feature at all in the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis cases of the persons whose cases were allowed. In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure-11 and the Commission is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner also, similarly on the lines it has recommended the names of other candidates for their appointments on the vacancies covered by Advertisement No.9 of 1995. On receipt of the recommendation, the State authorities shall act according to the same and pass orders for appointment of the petitioner. Entire exercise must be completed by the Commission and the State authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Obviously, in terms of the orders passed by this Court, petitioner shall also be entitled for his notional seniority in accordance with law. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)