IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3045 of 2008 KUMARI BIBHA SINHA @ SINGH &OR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.04.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners were applicant for the examination of Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery for the Session 1996. They competed the same and their names figured in the merit list. They filed CWJC No. 5753 of 1998 seeking relief of appointment. CWJC No. 6552 of 1996 was filed by certain orders on the claim that a higher qualification could not have been fixed and those with lesser qualification of Matriculation were also eligible to be considered. CWJC No. 6552 of 1996 was allowed on 5.3.1997 and directions given to hold fresh test for such applicants and a combined merit list be prepared when the writ application preferred by the petitioners came to be withdrawn. Subsequently Civil Review no. 165 of 1997 came to be filed by the State against the order in CWJC No. 6552 of 1006.This Court admitted the review application for hearing and stayed operation of the order in CWJC No. 6552 of 1996. In the meantime the petitioners preferred a fresh writ application for their appointment thereafter in CWJC No. 11096 of 2001 which was disposed on 22.2.2005. This Court noticing that the petitioners had been made to wait too long directed that till the supplementary examination is not held and the supplementary list not prepared the petitioners should be considered for such appointment. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the same the appointments still remains elusive even while certain others have been considered for appointment. The petitioners have filed a representation before the respondent no. 4. The matter has a chequered history. The petitioners were successful candidates in 1996 examination. Certain orders of this Court came in their way. Ultimately this Court did grant them relief on 22.2.2005. Unfortunately thereafter the petitioners appear to have become indolent and have approached this Court nearly three years later. This Court is not mindful of the submission on behalf of the State as to what may have happened in this period of three years by way of grant of fresh admission, commencement and conclusion of earlier sessions etc. This writ application is therefore disposed with the observation that the respondents are obliged to consider the petitioners for such appointment on the post of ANM in view of their success in 1996 written examination, the matter having chequered history for no fault of the petitioner but in view of own conduct of the petitioners after 22.2.2005, respondents shall consider the petitioners for such appointment only in the forth coming sessions preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 4. This Court leaves it to the respondents to consider any plea of the petitioners for appointment against any earlier 3 session if there be vacancy available. The Court makes no pronouncement on the same. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)