IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2034 of 2005 1. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI SURAJDEO KUMAR, R/O P.O.-ASHIANA NAGAR, P.O.-NAV VIKAS COLONY, HOUSE NO. 31, PATNA-800025. 2. SHIV KUMAR, S/O SHRI RAM ADHIA NAGVANSHI, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-SAHARGHAT, P.S.- SAHARGHAT, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI-847308. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800015. 5. DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800015. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Chitaranjan Sinha, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Amit Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, GP-8 and Mr.Ashutosh Singh, AC to GP-8. For the BPSC : Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Adv. ------------ 5 20.05.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no. 2 has got employment somewhere else and, therefore, he does not want to press this application so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned. The writ application is therefore dismissed in respect of petitioner no. 2. Petitioner no. 1 has filed this writ application challenging an order dated 8.12.2004 2 by which the representation of the petitioner for issue of appointment letter to him has been rejected precisely on the ground that as on the last date of submission of application he had not acquire the experience of one and half years in manufacturing of medicine and testing. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to accept his candidature and issue appointment letter to him. The case of petitioner is that the petitioner applied for his appointment as Drug Inspector under the respondents pursuant to advertisement no. 2 of 2000 with all requisite particulars. He was issued with admit card and was allowed to appear in the written examination in which he was declared to have passed. Thereafter, he was called for interview and finally he was declared successful and his name was recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission along with 40 other candidates to the Government vide Annexure-5 for appointment. Thereafter his documents were verified. He was subjected to medical test and police verification was held in which nothing against the petitioner was found. As the new reservation 3 policy had come into effect in the meanwhile, the revised recommendation vide Annexure-B to the Counter affidavit was sent to the Government in which also the name of the petitioner figured. However, he was not issued appointment letter inspite of all verifications. Therefore, he moved this Court through CWJC No. 376 of 2004, which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation as the same was still pending. Vide Annexure-9, his representation was finally rejected on the ground as stated above which is under challenged in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the advertisement no cut-off date was mentioned with regard to acquiring the experience of one and half years of training. He admits that till the last date of submission of application, i.e. 8.6.2000, petitioner did not had the requisite experience, but by the time he was called for interview he had completed the training of more than one and half years and so he was eligible for consideration of his case on merits. He submits that out of the 41 candidates recommended by the Commission 38 were appointed. 4 Among the 3 left out, one Uttam Kumar Singh moved this Court through separate writ application vide CWJC No. 10062 of 2005. His writ application was allowed by order dated 20.09.2006 vide Annexure-10. This Court found that since the said Uttam Kumar Singh had acquired the requisite experience of training, the respondents had wrongly excluded him from zone of consideration. Therefore, this Court directed the respondents to reconsider his case on merits for his appointment on the post of Drug Inspector. He submits that pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the said Uttam Kumar Singh has been appointed by the respondents. He submits that the other two left out candidates are present petitioners before this Court, out of which petitioner no. 2 has already got employment somewhere else and, therefore, the petitioner no. 1 is the only candidate recommended by the Commission left out by the respondents. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner no. 1 today along with which a proceeding of the Committee constituted for scrutiny of qualification and 5 experience of the candidates recommended by the Commission has been annexed. From this annexure learned counsel demonstrates that the said Uttam Kumar Singh did not had the requisite experience of training till the last date of submission of application. However, by the time he was called for interview he had gained the requisite experience. Likewise, he has demonstrated that this petitioner had also not got requisite experience till the last date of submission of application, but he also got the requisite training experience till the last date of interview. He submits that case of this petitioner is identical to the case of the said Uttam Kumar Singh. Therefore, the respondents are under obligation to accept the eligibility of the petitioner for the post and issue appointment letter to him. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that the petitioner was found eligible on the basis of marks obtained in the examination and interview and, therefore, his name was recommended to the State Government. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that since the petitioner had not 6 acquired the requisite training experience till the last date of submission of application his representation for appointment pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission was rejected. However, he accepts that the case of the said Uttam Kumar Singh was identical to the case of the petitioner. He also admits that in the advertisement no cut-off date was indicated for fulfilling the qualifications laid down in the advertisement. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that due to absence of specific stipulation in the advertisement with regard to cut-off date for acquiring the requisite training experience the petitioner submitted his application for consideration of his case in good faith. He was continuing with the training and it is not disputed that before the date of interview he had completed the training of one and half years. This is also not disputed that the said Uttam Kumar Singh who was also identically situated has been appointed by the respondents in terms of the orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court finds that this petitioner should also be given equal treatment 7 by the respondent State authorities as the said Uttam Kumar Singh. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and pass orders for his appointment on any vacant sanctioned post of Drug Inspector pursuant to the said recommendation of the Commission, if his candidature is not otherwise unfit. The order should be issued by the respondents, positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As a consequence of his appointment he shall be entitled for his seniority and pay protection as per his position in the recommendation of the Commission Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)