IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3464 of 2001 1. Deepak Kumar, Son of Sri Bhagirath Prasad Singh resident of MIG 360, Lohiya Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna. 2. Ram Kumar, Son of Sri Krishna Kant Mishra At + P.O.- Kharajpur, Thana-Bahadurpur, Dist-Darbhanga. 3. Kishore Kumar Patel, Son of Sachchida Nand Patel, At+ P.O.- Bhangaha, P.S. Falka, Dist- Katihar 4. Pramod Kumar, Son of Sri Chhedi Lal Sah, resident of At + P.O.- Thumaha, P.S. Pipra, District-Supaul. 5. Nand Kishore Yadav, Son of Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav, resident At + P.O.-Dariapur, P.S. H.Kharagpur, District- Munger. 6. Jitendra Kumar, Son of Prof. Jairam Sharma, resident At + P.O. Solara, District- Gaya. 7. Samrendra Kumar, Son of Sri Jai Narayan Kamat, At + P.O.- Suriyani via Phulparas, P.S. Phulparas, Dist- Madhubani, 8. Shankar Dayal Singh, Son of Sri Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh, Nutan Nagar Colony, At + P.O.-Gaya, Distt.- Gaya 9. Krishna Singh, Son of Sri Dhirija Singh, At + P.O. Dadar, P.S. Mohania, Dist- Kaimur(Bhabua) 10. Sundar Kant, Son of Sri Prasadi Mandal, At + P.O. Pothia, via-A.G. Bazar, Kurshela, District- Katihar 11. Om Prakash Bhaskar, S/o Sri Karn Deo Mallick, At Kanhauli Mallick Tola, P.O. Khajauli, Dist- Madhubani 12. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sri MaheswarYadav, at Krishnapuri (Rasoolpur) P.O.-DMC Campus, Dist.- Darbhanga …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director in Chief, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Additional Director, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Joint Director, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 5. The Dy. Director, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 6. The Dy. Director, General (Ophthalmology), Directorate of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Govt. of India, New Delhi. …….Respondents ----------- 9/ 10.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The issue relates to appointment on the post of Ophthalmic Assistant after the petitioners are stated to have completed their training. - 2 - The original scheme under which the petitioners may have been selected and sent for the training and what rights accrue to a selected candidate have not been brought on record. This court, therefore, finds it difficult to give any direction to consider appointment of the petitioners merely on completion of the training when it is the case of the respondents that after completion of the training no panel of eligible candidate was drawn up. In the meantime, the procedure for appointment has changed and the appointments are now to be made through Staff Selection Commission. The supplementary counter affidavit of the petitioner is that on 2.6.2005, the Health Department has already made requisition to the Staff Selection Commission for issuance of an advertisement for the purpose of making appointment on the post below the scale of 6500- 10500 which includes the post of Ophthalmic Assistant also. Learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to inform the court whether any advertisement has been published by the Commission and whether the petitioners have applied in response to the same. If any advertisement has been made by the Commission and the petitioners have applied, their cases are required to be considered in accordance with law expeditiously. In the event no advertisement has been issued by the Commission in pursuance of the requisition sent on 2.6.2005, this court directs the Commission to proceed to do so forthwith. If the petitioners apply in response to any such advertisement, their cases shall have to be considered appropriately including the issue of relaxation of age for - 3 - reasons of the delay attributable to the respondents alone. In so far as any alleged arrears of stipend of the petitioners during the period of training is concerned, if the petitioners file representation before the concerned respondent, this Court expects that the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. JA/- (Navin Sinha, J.)