IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12777 of 2010 1. DR.MITHLESH KUMAR S/O LATE RAMYATAN YADAV R/O SARAN TOLA, SAHOO BIGHA, P.O.SARAN, VIA-TEHTA, P.S.TEHTA, DISTT- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH -CUM-CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY NEW SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY 6TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING, 36TH JANPATH, NEW DELHI 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY SHEIKHPURA, PATNA 4. C.B. ALEX, ADDL. PROJECT DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY SHEIKHPURA, PATNA 5. VIJAY KUMAR, STATISTICAL OFFICER, BIHAR STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA For the petitioner : M/s. S. Azeem, Pallavi Thakur, Ashok Kr. Singh, S.K.Singh, Advocates. For the State : M/s. J.P.Karn, AAG-9, Rjgariar, AC to AAG-9, Advocates. For respondents 2,3, and 4 : Mr. J. Singh, Sr.Adv. ----------- 10. 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for the Bihar State Aids Control Society, Sheikhpura, Patna(hereinafter referred to as the Society). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the society not to select him on the post of Statistical Officer pursuant to advertisement dated 6.11.2009, Annexure-11 published in Dainik Jagran, Patna edition, he is further aggrieved by selection of respondent no.5 on the said post. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was appointed to serve the Society on the post of Statistical Officer on contract basis under order dated 8.1.2004, Annexure-1 on the consolidated sum of 10,000/- per month which was further enhanced - 2 - under order dated 5.6.2008, Annexure-3 to 15,000/- per month. Appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time until 15.12.2009, as is evident from order of the Additional Project Director bearing memo No.772 dated 13.10.2009, Annexure-10. It is also submitted that pursuant to advertisement, Annexure-11 four candidates were short listed, out of whom two appeared for interview on 23.12.2009 i.e. petitioner and respondent no.5. It is submitted that petitioner had better qualification and experience than respondent no.5 as petitioner is not only PHD in Statistics but also possesses post graduate diploma in computer application and had more than five years experience of serving the Society itself on the post of Statistical Officer, whereas respondent no.5 was only post graduate in Statistics and had experience of serving as Statistical Officer in one of the NGO i.e. Bachpan Bachao, which does not perform any work concerning data collection and the so called experience earned by respondent no.5 while serving the NGO Bachpan Bachao could not have been taken as experience required for the post of Statistical Officer. Petitioner has further alleged in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit that respondent no.4, Sri C.B. Alex who presided over the proceedings of the selection committee was favourably inclined to consider the candidature of respondent no.5 for ulterior motive and he not only preferred him over the petitioner but also accepted his joining on 28.12.2009, which was a national holiday as Sri Alex was scheduled to relinquish charge on 30.12.2009 as his term was come to an end on that day. It is further submitted that petitioner having served the - 3 - Society for about six years there was no occasion for the Society to again advertise the post as his appointment was also made in the Society after advertisement of the post in newspaper and nothing was ever alleged against him. 4. The question as to whether respondent no.5 was eligible for the post of Statistical Officer in the Society with his experience earned at NGO Bachpan Bachao is required to be answered by the Chairman of the Society together with the question that if petitioner was appointed in the Society on contract basis after advertisement and his appointment was extended for about six years then what was the occasion not to select him and to select an outsider who has not served the Society earlier. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to highlight the aforesaid two submissions noted in my order as also any other submission, which the petitioner considers appropriate to be raised in the representation. The representation should be filed before the Chairman of the Society annexing a copy of my order. The Chairman of the Society shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of representation. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)