IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8913 of 2007 1. Shunil Kumar, S/o Late Girish Prasad, aged about 49 years, Dressing Centre, Hospital Road, Hajipur, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Town Sadar, Dist. Vaishali. 2. Deep Narain Sah, S/o late Ram Chandra Sah, aged about 55 years, Village Phulhara, Bazar, P.O. Bidupur, R.S. Via Bahuara, P.S. Rajapakar Baranti, O.P. Dist. Vaishali. 3. Surendra Das, S/o Late Ram Jivan Das, aged about 51 years at & P.O. Hilalpur, Via Bidupur, R.S. P.S. Industrial Area, Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali. ---------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director of Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Civil Surgeon, Vaishali at Hajipur. ----------- Respondents ----------- 3 29.09.2011 Heard Mr. Bhola Bhai Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Mr. Desai as with regard to the following prayer:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order/orders as the nature of the case may require commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Dressers under the Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna on contract basis after relating the qualification to Middle Trained as they are trained persons as Dressers. As per advertisement dated 3.06.07 of the Health Department application have been invited for the appointment of Dressers on 2 contract basis on fixed pay (honorarium) in the age group of 18 to 64 years. Lest to appoint the petitioners as per Advertisement No. O.C. 32/91 to which they had/have applied in 1991 through the District Employment Exchange office, Vaishali at Hajipur. The fate of their applications are not known to them as yet. This was for 21 Dressers the qualification for which was prescribed middle pass trained Dressers.” would submit that when the petitioners were initially engaged on the post of Dresser on daily wages, they had also a hope of being selected in view of an advertisement issued by the authority vide Advertisement No. 32 of 1991 and such legitimate expectation of the petitioners could not have been defeated by the State government by enhancing the qualification of the post of Dresser as also advertising the post afresh for regular appointment instead of regularising their daily wage engagement. He has thus submitted that a direction be issued to the respondents for completing the process of selection of Advertisement No. 32 of 1991 and that the process of selection undertaken on the basis of fresh Advertisement dated 3.6.2007 should 3 be cancelled. In the considered opinion of this Court, mere publication of an advertisement would not give any candidate a right to get also those posts filled up. In any event, an advertisement of the year 1991 cannot be now directed to be acted upon on the ground of lapse of more than twenty years. As with regard to the right of the petitioners on the basis of his daily wages appointment, nothing was conveyed in the orders of their engagement on daily wages which could have given the petitioners a glimmer of hope that their daily wages engagement was to be regularized in future. From a perusal of a specimen appointment letter dated 29th September, 1976 issued to one of the petitioners reading as follows:- ^^dk;kZy;&vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfeRlk inkf/kdkjh] oS'kkyh] gkthiqjA vkns'k&&&&&&&&&&@ Jh lquhy dqekj firk Jh xzhl izlkn xzke gkslihVyjksM gkthiqj iks0 gkthiqj Fkkuk gkthiqj ftyk oS”kkyh dks foydqy vLFkkbZ :i esa budqysVj ds in ij egkekjh dks jksd Fkke djus ds fy, izfr fnu 10¾00 ¼:i;s½ ds nj ij cgky fd;k tkrk gS oks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd os viuk ;ksxnku izHkkjh fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh izk0 Lok- dsUnz nsljh ds ;gkW dj mlds vkns'kkuqlkj lwbZ nsus dk dk;Z lEiUu djsaA lEcfU/kr izHkkjh fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkids v/khu fd;s x;s budqysVj dks vfoyEc vius {ks= esa izfrfu;qDr dj mlls dke ysa ,oa mlds dk;Z dk ns[k ns[k djsa rkfd egkekjh ugha gks ldsA** it would become clear that the engagement on 4 daily wages was purely an ad hoc arrangement to check of sudden massive eruption of cases of Cholera. Consequently, such engagement of the petitioners on daily wages in the year 1976 can also not be an impediment for the Government in framing a service condition and/or laying a qualification for filling up the posts on regular basis. It was/is infact always open for the appointing authority to lay down qualification for the post and if the Government has found it appropriate that for the post of Dresser, the candidate must be Matriculate apart from being trained, this Court would not find anything bad in it so as to interfere with the consequential advertisement issued on 3.6.2007. A reading of the advertisement dated 3.6.2007 would in fact go to show that it was issued by State Health Society, which is covered by a different scheme and whose area of operation is different than the regular establishment of the surgency in the district. Such advertisement of State health Society dated 3.6.2007 also in fact cannot be quashed on the assumption of the petitioners that the rules for appointment on the post of Dresser 5 the government service had been changed retrospectively. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the newspaper cutting dated 15.11.2007 as contained in Anenxure1-1 of the reply affidavit also must be held to be wholly misplaced inasmuch as, nothing can be found from such newspaper reporting, which is more or less only a creation of a local correspondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners can also not rely on a precedent either of this Court or of the Apex Court, without producing a copy of the same. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)