IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9823 of 2008 Dr.Kumari Indu, wife of Dr.Shri Ram Prasad, resident of village Raghupatti, P.O. Karwathi Bazar, P.S. Kuchai Kot, District- Gopalganj, Bihar. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.The Director (Indigenous Medicines), Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4.The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 through its Secretary 5.The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna-800001. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Vinay Krishna Tripathy,Adv. For the State : Mr.Sumant Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.5 For the B.P.S.c. : M/s Kumar Bijendra Nath and S.C.Jha,Adv. ---------------------------------- 5. 27/07/2011 Petitioner was applicant for appointment as Homoeopathic Doctor under the State Government against vacancies published through Advertisement No.9 of 1995. Name of the petitioner was earlier recommended by the Commission. From Annexure-9 dated 13.2.1997, it appears that the Department returned the documents of all the candidates to the Commission with a request to re-draw the list 2 of recommended candidates and send the same to the Government. It was specifically mentioned in the letter that few candidates, i.e., petitioner and two others had not produced Internship Certificates. Thereafter, the Commission drew a list of the candidates and recommended the same to the Government through its letter dated 21.4.1999, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-10 with the writ application. In the said list, names of three candidates were kept in abeyance as they were not having Internship Certificate. However, name of the petitioner was recommended by the Commission amongst 62 candidates. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the name of the petitioner was recommended, she was not appointed by the Government as she could not produce Internship Certificate. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 25.4.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.7983 of 1999 and other analogous cases, which was preferred by some candidates including the two, out of three, whose cases were kept in abeyance by the Commission as mentioned in Annexure-10. The writ applications were finally allowed and 3 it was held that Internship Certificate was not necessary as the candidates had some practical training from before which could be equated with Internship. Accordingly, this Court directed the Commission to recommend the names of the petitioners to the Government for their appointment pursuant to which Commission has recommended their names and they have been appointed. He submits that the State Government had refused appointment of the petitioner in 1999 on the ground that she had not produced Internship Certificate which now this Court has held was not required. Hence, benefit of the said judgment should be given to the petitioner also and Commission should be directed to again recommend her name for appointment. This Court is unable to issue such a direction. Annexure-10 shows that the name of the petitioner was recommended to the Government in the year 1999 itself for appointment without any conditions. If the petitioner was not appointed by the Government on the ground that she did not produce Internship Certificate, cause of action arose to the petitioner at that point of time to 4 challenge that decision of the Government in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding before any appropriate forum. From the said judgment as referred to earlier, it is apparent that two persons, who were vigilant enough to move this Court in right earnest, challenging such decision of the Commission, keeping their names in abeyance, have succeeded. Petitioner did not move anywhere and kept sitting without raising any grievance against said refusal by the Government, for almost nine years. After the said two candidates have succeeded in this Court, petitioner has woke up and filed this writ application. The Apex Court has made it clear more than once that fence sitters are not entitled to relief which other persons got from the Court while pursuing their grievances in right earnest within time. Only on account of passage of time, claim of the petitioner has become stale. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)