IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4597 of 2000 GOPALJEE ANAND & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 27.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners were persons afflicted with leprosy. They were cured by treatment. Their claim now is for appointment on Class IV posts in the office of Health Department and in the District Office in the district of Rohtas. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Government of India on 14.6.1982 took a policy decision for rehabilitation of erstwhile leprosy patients to enable them to live as normal persons in the society to rehabilitate them after cure. As a measure of leprosy control and rehabilitation, it was decided that all posts belonging to category ‘D’ in all the National Leprosy (Control) Programme Units should preferably be filled up with cured leprosy patients with requisite qualification and capabilities. This was communicated to all Civil Surgeons, the Superintendent of Medical Colleges and the Leprosy Eradication Officers on 16.8.1982 by the State Government. In pursuance of the same the Additional Collector Rohtas on 29.11.1994 wrote to the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram forwarding the applications of the petitioners and requesting that the same may be formally submitted for consideration by the Committee constituted for the purpose. The matter remained pending when the petitioners filed the present writ application seeking the reliefs. 2 The official respondents with the exception of respondent no. 5 have not even bothered to file a counter affidavit. The Government of India formulated a social welfare scheme. This scheme was only in furtherance of the goals to the Indian Constitution promising social justice more specifically incorporated in Article 38 of Chapter IV of the Constitution dealing with directive principles of State policy. In other words, a routine administrative matter for implementation of social welfare schemes, a constitutional duty of the respondents, was thrown to the winds by them. The petitioners had to come to this Court seeking relief. The institution of the writ application also did not arouse the conscience of the respondents towards their constitutional duties. Despite two opportunities with the exception of respondent no. 5 no counter affidavit has been filed. Not only have the concerned respondents shown unconcern for the constitutional goals to the plight of the petitioners, lastly their conscience has refused to be aroused even after institution of the writ application. An administrative issue has been thrust upon the High Court for adjudication in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue for adjudication is why the administrative powers are not being exercised. The respondents still refuse to answer the same. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 is absolutely non committal as if he does not wish to accept the responsibility for the submissions that he makes in it. The writ petition is based on orders of the Government of India and 3 the consequential orders of the State Government for social rehabilitation of erstwhile leprosy patients. The respondent no. 5 in his counter affidavit states that he is neither in a position to accept or deny the submission. It appears that the counter affidavit was filed as an empty formality only because a writ application had been filed in the High Court. The situation is most unfortunate. On facts, where the respondents are refusing to exercise their administrative powers for consideration of the case of the petitioners, subjecting them to harassment, this Court is left with no other option but to direct the respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioners for appointment on Class IV posts in Leprosy Eradication (Control) Programme Units in terms of the instructions of the Government of India dated 14.6.1982 in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, acknowledged by the State of Bihar. Let such consideration be done and appropriate decision in accordance with law be taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before respondent no. 1. If the respondents propose to deny the benefits of the policy decision dated 14.6.1982 to the petitioners they would be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order only after furnishing to the petitioners the materials on which they propose to rely to deny the relief and granting adequate opportunity including personal hearing to the petitioners. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)