IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20358 of 2010 Subodh Kumar, son of Shri Raj Kishore Sharma, resident of Mohalla S.P. Bariar Path, Postal Park, Police Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna……….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, State Health Society, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District Health Society, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Vice Chairman, District Health Society, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Society, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Sub Divisional Chief Medical Officer-cum-Member, District Health Society, Bihar, Patna. 8. Dr. Shivani Mukherjee, Member, District Health Society, Bihar, Patna. 9. Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, father name not known, Mohalla- Sahbajpura, P.S. Phulwarisharif, Khagaul Road, District- Patna. ……………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. J.P. Karna, A.A.G.4 Mr. A.K. Dubey, A.C. to A.A.G.4 For respondent No.9 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---------------- 6. 20.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the private respondent No.9 The writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to appoint the petitioner as Dentist on contract basis. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notice 2 published on the Notice Board in the office of the Civil Surgeon- cum- Chief Medical Officer, Patna, the petitioner appeared in the interview held on 2.8.2010 for appointment as Dentist within Patna District on contract basis before the District Health Society at Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna. According to the petitioner, the candidates were required to enter their names, addresses and qualifications in the register kept there and the appointments were to be made on “first come first get” basis. Number of vacancies available were 10. The petitioner signed the register at serial No.10. However, it is alleged that the name of private respondent No.9, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, was subsequently inserted by interpolation between serial No.8 and serial No.9, Dr. Kumari Radha, as a result of which, the said Dr. Akhilesh Kumar was appointed on contract basis but the petitioner was deprived of the same. In support of his aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the zerox copy of the register, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the interpolation and insertion of the name of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar is evident to the naked eye, as there is no space either above or below his name and that of the candidate at serial No.8 and the 3 candidate at so called Serial No.10. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that from a perusal of the Attendance Register, it is also evident that on account of insertion of respondent No.9 at Serial No.9 in the register, the serial number of the next candidate Kumari Radha has been overwritten from 9 to 10 and similarly that of the petitioner from Serial No. 10 to 11 and the said overwriting continues in each of the succeeding Serial Nos. till that of Serial No.14 wherein original Serial No.13 has been made Serial No.14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.6, the Civil Surgeon-cum- Member Secretary, District Health Society, Bihar, it is stated that from a perusal of the Attendance Register for interview held on 2.8.2010, it appears that the name of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar was showing him at Serial No.9 and it further appears that the name of the petitioner was originally at Serial No.10 but overwriting has been made therein but none of the members signature is there on the concerned page. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the aforesaid interpolations, which are apparent from the record, were not possible without the connivance of the then Civil Surgeon-cum- Member Secretary of the Society and the then District Programme Manager. The then Civil Surgeon-cum- Member 4 Secretary has retired on 31.12.2010 and the then District Programme Manager is no more in service. Learned counsel for the respondent No.9, on the other hand, submits that the register is in the custody of the official respondents and how the same has been maintained and entries made is not at all the responsibility of respondent No.9. It is submitted that respondent No.9 reached for the interview and signed on the Attendance Register in seriatim at the place where he was to appear at the interview. Learned counsel further denies that interpolation was made and submits that due to inadvertent and deliberate error in writing of serial No., it is possible that correction could be made in the same and down the line. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. On the direction of this Court, the original register has also been produced. From a perusal of the said register, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the name of the petitioner has been definitely interpolated between the candidates at Serial No.8 and Original Serial No.9. On a perusal of the register, one finds that with respect to each of the candidates there is space of either two lines or one line in between the candidate above and below, except in the case of the petitioner where there is no space either below or above; further, 5 his name, entire address and everything else has been sought to be accommodated within the two lines, which were originally the gap between serial Nos.8 and 9 and must have been interpolated before the original serial No. 9. The only exception in the register is that between serial Nos. 2 and 3 there is no gap but the distinction is that there is a gap of a line between serial Nos.1 and 2. Moreover, it does not appear that the name of serial no.2 has been accommodated, whereas in the case of the petitioner, the address of respondent No.9 has spilt over to the column for Phone No. which clearly goes to show that whatever space was available between serial Nos. 8 and 9 had to be accommodated for the purpose of including the entire address of respondent No.9. Further it is evident that serial Nos. 9 to 13 have definitely been overwritten and the same have been made serial Nos. 10 to 14 respectively. The submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.9 may have been accepted if the mistake had occurred at any one point, but from a perusal of all the entries made in the Attendance Register, it is evident that the name of respondent No.9 has been subsequently inserted between serial Nos. 8 and 9 so as to give him the benefit of the contractual appointment as a Dentist, which had the effect of depriving the petitioner of his 6 appointment on the said contractual post. Thus, on a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application succeeds. Accordingly, the appointment of respondent No.9, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Dentist in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )