IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2772 of 2002 NUTAN NAVIN SINHA, D/O BHAGAWAT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BIRUPUR, P.S.-BIRUPUR (OLD P.S. BARHAIYA, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI (OLD DISTRICT MONGHYR) AT PRESENT POSTED AS A.N.M. IN THE P.H.C., CHENARI AT AND P.O.-CHENARI P.S.- CHENARI, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR, HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND F.W. DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-C.M.O., ROHTAS, SASARAM. 5. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, P.H.C.-CHENARI, AT AND P.O. AND P.S.-CHENARI, DISRICT-ROHTAS. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 02.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay her salary of the period 27.11.1997 to 29.09.2000. It is submitted that inspite of orders passed in CWJC No. 9867 of 1997 on 3.11.1997, in which petitioner was also one of the party, the respondents have delayed the appointment of the petitioner and she had to file a contempt application before this Court in which she was given liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondents which she filed. Only thereafter, petitioner’s case was considered and she was appointed by the 2 respondents by Annexure-5 on the post of A.N.M. The order relied upon by the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-1. From the order, it appears that the same was disposed of with the agreement of the parties in the light of order passed in CWJC No. 10267 of 1995 and the respondent Civil Surgeon- Cum-Chief Medical Officer was directed to examine the case of the petitioners and dispose of their claims within a period of two weeks. The order passed in CWJC No. 10267 of 1995 is annexed as Annexure-3 to this writ application. From that order, it appears that the writ application of the petitioners was allowed precisely on the ground that they had obtained higher marks in the test than the persons appointed. Therefore, this Court directed the petitioners of that case to be appointed. From the order passed in the contempt matter of the petitioner, it appears that the persons whose appointments were cancelled pursuant to order passed in CWJC No. 10267 of 1995 had moved this Court which remained pending. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered. Since it was noticed by the Court that the said writ application was 3 disposed of later on, this Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents for consideration of her case. The contempt application of the petitioner was disposed of only with such liberty to the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter represented and admitted that she has been appointed by Annexure-4 dated 29.9.2000. From the facts emerging from the said orders of this Court, it appears that the delay in appointment of the petitioner by the respondents was not deliberate and was not malafide and was caused due to pendency of dispute in this Court raised by the candidates whose appointments had been cancelled. Therefore, this Court did not find any merit in the contempt application of the petitioner and dispose it of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)