IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2678 of 2001 BANDANA KUMARI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 09.04.2009 Heard learned Counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek the relief for appointment on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Mid Wife(hereinafter referred to as ANM). Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 734 of 1995 at Annexure-8-A in support of the claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were selected for training of A N M in 1994. They completed their training and passed the examination conducted by the Bihar Nurses Registration Council in the year 1998. They then registered themselves in the Bihar Nurses Registration Council on 17.4.1998. - 2 - Persons similarly situated have been considered for appointment while the petitioners have been denied such consideration. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manorama Kumari Vs. Anjani Kumar Verma ( 2008(3) PLJR 715) and in the case of N.T.Devin Katti and others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (1990(3) SCC 157). Learned Counsel for the State submits that earlier the procedure for training and appointment of Auxiliary Nurse Mid Wife was regulated by the Health Manual. Effective from the date 1.10.1996, the procedure for appointment of trained A.N.M has been changed and now required selection by competitive examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. He relied upon another decision of this Court in CWJC No. 1426 of 1999 and analogous - 3 - cases disposed on 26.6.2000 at Annexure „C‟ to the counter affidavit, as also a Division Bench decision in the case of Rita Kumari vs.State of Bihar reported in 2003(3) PLJR 71. In the case of Rita Kumari a Division Bench of this Court was considering the challenge to the termination from the post of A.N.M. without advertisement or publicity of the vacancies for appointment. The appellant urged that after training had been imparted for purposes of appointment there was no need for advertisement or publication of the vacancies. The Division Bench held at paragraph 3 as follows:- “3…………….Further more, training as has been claimed by the appellant is only with respect to eligibility for the post and not for appointment. It is not necessary that all trained persons are to be appointed. Obtaining training does not create vested right for appointment.” - 4 - Under the procedure existing earlier, a panel of successful candidates was drawn up for appointment after training. Once the panel for appointment had been drawn up it could be argued that the selection process had commenced. On the facts of this case the petitioners were sent for training in 1994. In pursuance of the completion of their training they passed examination in 1998. The question of drawing up a panel for appointment arose after they passed the examination. Before they could pass the examination the rule and procedure for appointment changed on 1.10.1996. It is therefore clear that the procedure for appointment changed before the selection process had started. In the case of N.T.Devin Katti and others Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others ( 1990 (3) SCC - 5 - 157) relied upon by the petitioners the facts were fundamentally different. Under the existing procedure, advertisement was issued, written examination and viva voice test held, the list of successful candidates finalized and published. The State Government refused to approve the list in view of certain changed in procedure with regard to reservation effected during the process. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that the selection process commenced under the existing rules must be completed there under as candidates who undergo written and viva voice test acquired a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. It has been seen that the facts presently are fundamentally different. The selection process had not - 6 - commenced. In CWJC No. 734 of 1995 and the case of Manorma Kumari relied upon by the petitioners, it related to candidates who became eligible for appointment and after selection were empanelled for appointment prior to 1.10.1996. That is the distinction on which relief has been denied in CWJC No. 1426 of 1999, relied upon by the respondents. This Court therefore finds no reason to take any view different from that in the case of Rita Kumari and CWJC No. 1426 of 1999. The writ application stands dismissed. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.kumar