IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12574 of 2004 Bishram Ojha, son of Sri Radha Mohan Ojha, resident of village- Balapur, P.S. Buxar (I), District- Buxar, at present posted as Steno-cum- typist, Government Sri Dhanvantari Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Buxar ….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.The Deputy Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.Director, Indigenous Medicine, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.Principal, Government Sri Dhanvantari Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Buxar ……. Respondents. ----------- 4. 08/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. From Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, it appears that, some of the employees of the very college, in which petitioner also claims his appointment, had moved this Court challenging the findings of the Screening Committee, constituted for consideration of take-over of their services as a consequence of take-over of the college, and consequent order of termination of their services. By the considered judgment, this Court has held that, prior to the resolution of the governing body dated 25.3.1984, there was no obligation on the part of the management to - 2 - advertise the post or hold process of selection for appointment on the post and therefore, any consideration on the said ground was beyond the scope of the enquiry by the Screening Committee under section 6(2) of the Act. In the said judgment this Court held that for appointees prior to the said date the only consideration the Screening Committee could make was as to whether any fraud was played in their appointment or their appointment was void ab initio or at the time of their appointment incumbents lacked basic academic qualifications for any particular post or facts were showing termination of their services prior to 25.3.1984. After coming to that conclusion, this court remitted the matter of the petitioners of the specific cases before it to the State Government for reconsideration. As the present petitioner was not party before this Court in the batch of cases, his case has not been considered by the State Government under the ratio and law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. From the report of the Screening Committee, annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it appears that while considering - 3 - case of the petitioner, the Screening Committee noticed the fact that there was no advertisement, no interview and no procedure for selection was adopted by the College prior to issue of appointment letter dated 12.10.1981, pursuant to which petitioner joined on 9.1.1982. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner accepted before the Screening Committee that prior to his appointment there was no advertisement and interview and also he did not know shorthand and typing in Hindi and English. So far as requirement of advertisement and interview is concerned, petitioner being appointee prior to 25.3.1984, the same is not relevant for considering the case of the petitioner for his absorption. So far as his knowledge of shorthand and typing in Hindi and English is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement recorded in the report of the Screening Committee was factually wrong as petitioner never accepted his lack of knowledge of the same before the Screening Committee. In fact, he produces a certificate issued by an Institute in the year 1981 of having imparted him training and he having requisite speed for eligibility for - 4 - appointment on the post of Steno-typist. It is admitted at the bar that since the direction issued by this Court in the judgment annexed as Annexure-C was confined to the writ petitioners of batch of cases before it, case of the petitioner has not been considered in the light of the said judgment by the competent authority of the State Government. In the circumstances, this Court feels it proper to remit the matter to the competent authority of the State Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the ratio and law laid down by this Court in its judgment as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It is expected that the said consideration shall be made by the concerned respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after due notice to the petitioner and opportunity to him to present his case before the competent authority. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)