IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7397 of 2003 KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH, son of late Faudari Singh, resident of village Basdiha, P.S. Kutumba, District Aurangabad … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 5. The Assistant Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 6. The Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Aurangabad 7. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad … Respondents ----------- 5. 13.9.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by an order dated 3.9.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 7416/2003, wherein this Court has remitted the matter back to the Director-in-Chief of Health Services to make a fresh enquiry as with regard to genuineness and legality in the appointment of the petitioner. He would, therefore, also submit that this writ application be disposed of in the same terms as in the aforementioned case, i.e. C.W.J.C.No. 7416/2003 disposed of on 3.9.2001. Counsel for the State, however, would like to distinguish the aforementioned 2 case by taking a plea that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the orders of the Minister and there is nothing to show that the competent authority had ever applied his independent mind for making appointment of the petitioner, rather the same was by way of direction given to him by the Minister concerned. In the opinion of this Court whole purpose of enquiry entrusted to the Director-in-Chief is to find out the legality in such appointment. Admittedly the petitioner has continued in service earlier under the order of the authority and later in terms of the order passed on 13.8.2003 and therefore, when the issue is to be gone afresh by the Director-in-Chief this Court would not like to make any observation save and except that if the appointment of the petitioner is per se illegal (not irregular) as laid down in the Constitution Bench Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Uma Devi & ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, further reiterated in the case of the State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & ors., 3 reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 and in the case of Satya Prakash & ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2010(2) PLJR 33 (S.C.), he would pass an order in the same terms as in the cases of other petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 7416/2003. If, however, he would find that the case of the petitioner cannot be even put at the pedestal of the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 7416/2003, he while passing his order would give reasons for such distinction, inasmuch as it is claimed by the counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were eventually regularized by the competent authority in the prescribed manner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of in terms of the order dated 3.9.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 7416/2003 wherein the interim order for continuing the services of the petitioner has been allowed to persist till final order is passed by the Director-in- Chief and as such, the petitioner also will be allowed to continue in service till final decision is taken in his case by the Director-in-Chief. The Director-in-Chief, 4 however, must make an effort to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/