IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16115 of 2010 1. KUMARI RITA W/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR R/O CHANDRA HOUSE, RAM KRISHNA LANE, P.O.- BANKIPUR, P.S.- PIRBAHOR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. STATE HEALTH SOCIETY THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOVT. OF BIHAR, PARIVAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-14 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PARIVAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-14 5. DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM PRESIDENT DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, DISTT.- PATNA 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM PRESIDENT, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, DISTT.- PATNA 7. CIVIL SURGEON CUM SECRETARY CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- 2 11/05/2011 Petitioner was one of the persons whose name figured in the so called provisional merit list which was short listed for appointment as an Ayush Doctor. The stream to which the petitioner was a claimant is stated to be Homoeopathic. Letter of appointment dated 05.08.2010 was issued in favour of the petitioner and she joined the place of posting and started working when in less than a fortnight, the so called corrigendum was issued by the respondents on 20.08.2010. The petitioner - 2 - has come to be ousted from the post. Counter affidavit on behalf of the State as well as the Bihar Health Society has now been filed explaining the circumstances under which such a decision was taken detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. According to them, while preparing the provisional merit list, the name of the candidate who stood at serial no. 35, namely, Pushpa Kumari got omitted. She was the first amongst the category of candidates on the merit list and by such clerical omission, though not intentionally, the right of rightfully claimant with much higher merit came to be over looked. It is in this background that she came to be accommodated and the last persons on the merit list who happened to be the present petitioner came to be ousted looking at the number of vacancies which had to be filled up which was stated to be fourteen in number. The Court does not appreciate the manner in which such decisions are taken or the hurry for notifying such names without proper verification of the records because such decisions are bound to create bad blood, if not suspicion in the mind of a citizen. Not only this, it is rather unfortunate that the petitioner came to alter her - 3 - position by virtue of the appointment letter offered to her by the respondents. It is stated that she abandoned her earlier appointment in favour of the present offer. This could be a case where the petitioner ought to be compensated for whatever be the reasons for the mistake committed by the respondents. A statement is made at the Bar by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that there are still vacancies available within 14 as there are some persons who have not reported or decided to join. If that be so, then in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed that if within the time frame fixed for such joining if the concerned persons over and above the petitioner, do not join then the petitioner gets a right to be offered that vacancy and the respondents have an obligation to do so. Giving benefit of doubt to the respondents in the present case, this writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents that based on the available vacancies, as have been stated over and above the petitioner’s merit, she will be adjusted/offered appointment at the very first opportunity available in this - 4 - regard. This exercise will be done immediately by the respondents. This writ application stands disposed of with the direction aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)