IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.14885 OF 2009 INDU BALA SRIVASTAVA,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O SRI SATISH KUMAR SINHA, POSTED AS NON MEDICAL ASSISTANT DISTRICT LEPROSY ERADICATIN UNIT, DHOBHA BLOCK ARRAH, BHOJPUR RESIDENT OF PAKRI EAR GAS AGENCY, POLICE STATION ARRAH, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARRAH, BIHAR. 3.THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT LEPROSY ERADICATION UNIT ADDL. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, DHOBHA, ARRAH, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 17.11.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order of her termination dated 05.09.2003, whereby and whereunder, her earlier appointment made on 23.06.1980 has been cancelled on the ground of certain irregularities in the process of selection. Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that when such illegal appointments were made the subject matter of an inquiry by Five-Man-Committee constituted under the order of this Court in L.P.A No. 946 of 2003 and its analogous 2 cases whereby and whereunder the judgment in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit reported in 2006(3)PLJR 386, it was found that the only flaw in the appointment of the petitioner was that she has not been appointed by the Competent Authority. He however, would submit that even in that report the post of the petitioner was wrongly shown as A.N.M whereas the fact remains that the petitioner’s appointment was made on the post of Non-Medical Assistant. He would further submit that the power of appointment on the post of Non- Medical Assistant was vested in the Civil Surgeon in the year 1985-1986 and therefore, even the reason in the Five-Man- Committee report is contrary to the materials on record. Counsel for the State on the other hand, has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was bad because it was found by the Civil Surgeon that her order of appointment was issued after two months from the date of interview. He has also explained with the help of paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit that the 3 appointment of the petitioner was bad on account of certain illegalities committed in the process of her appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons which have ultimately weighed upon the Authorities in refusing regularization of service as contained in Five-Man-Committee report is that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, because it was made by the incompetent Authority. The Committee in other cases have clearly recorded that the appointment Rules in their cases were not followed. Such is not the remark in the case as would be apparent from the extract of Five-Man- Committee against the name of the petitioner at serial no. 152 wherein the appointment of the petitioner has been declared to be illegal on the ground of her being appointed by an incompetent Authority. The question therefore, in the present case is who was the Competent Authority for appointment on the post of Non-Medical Assistant in the year 1985? The petitioner asserts that such power was with 4 the Civil Surgeon even till the year 1985 - 1986 and therefore, if the petitioner’s appointment was made in the year 1980, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner was made by an incompetent Authority. Had the petitioner been appointed on the post of Non-Medical- Assistant after the year 1986, probably the question of jurisdiction of Civil Surgeon could have been raised. Considering all these aspects and specially the fact that the persons similarly situated alike the petitioner in view of the report of the Five-Man- Committee has also been directed to be reqularized as would be apparent from the perusal of the order dated 20.09.2007 as contained in Annexure-4/1 to the writ application wherein a number of persons including Raj Kishore Prasad, (Non-Medical- Assistant), Braj Bihari Singh (Non-Medical- Assistant), and Sant Dayal, (Non-Medical- Assistant) have been regularized, this Court would direct the respondents to also reqularize the services of the petitioner with the same benefit as was given to other 5 91 persons including the persons named above by the order dated 20.09.2007. In other words, the petitioner would now stand reinstated in service but would not be entitled for payment of salary for the period she has remained out of service till 20.09.2007. The petitioner therefore, will be entitled for payment of salary from 20.09.2007 and also continuity of her service for the purposes of earning her retirement benefits. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)