IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3099 of 2008 KIRAN KUMARI, WIFE OF LATE BRAJ BHUSHAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-ARYA KUMAR ROAD, MACHHUA TOLI, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT AND TOWN-PATNA……………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, TUBERCULOSIS DEMONSTRATION CENTRE, AGAMKUAN, PATNA. 5. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, CHEST CLINIC, GARDANIBAGH, PATNA. ………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Ambar Nath Banerjee & Surendra Mishra, Advocates. For the State : M/s. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC-VII & Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-VII. ------------- 9. 10.3.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks direction to the Respondents authorities to accept her joining from the joining report dated 20.3.2007 as contained in Annexure-‘6’ submitted before the 2 Director, Tuberculosis Demonstration and Training Centre, Agamkuan, Patna, and also for payment of her salary and all consequential benefits. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Clerk against the sanctioned vacant post in the office of the Incharge Medical Officer, Chest Clinic, Gardanibagh, Patna and had joined on 7.2.1992. She had been paid her salary upto 30th of April, 1993. Previously a letter dated 30th of April, 1992 was written to the Commissioner, Health Services, Government of Bihar by the Director, Tuberculosis Demonstration and Training Centre, Agamkuan, Patna, for confirmation of the services of the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, no decision could be taken with regard to that despite another letter written on 7.6.1994. Thereafter, it is submitted that the petitioner fell ill as she was suffering from serious ailments as described in paragraph-9 to the writ application and was being medically treated. It is claimed that the petitioner’s application for grant of medical leave for one month from 26.6.1995 to 25.7.1995 was also sent followed by other applications for extension of medical leave on 26.6.1995 and 25.7.1995 and after a long treatment from 26.5.1995 to 17.3.2007, i.e., after 12 years, the Doctor 3 declared that the petitioner is completely cured and is fit to resume her duty. As such she submitted her joining before the Director concerned, which was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, on 8.6.2007 vide Annexure-‘8’ to the writ application, the Director concerned has written a letter to the Director-in-Chief for guidelines regarding her joining. The petitioner claims that from Annexures-‘2’ and ‘3’ to the Interlocutory Application No.7286 of 2008, it appears that her joining has been accepted and subsequently, vide Annexure- ‘1’ to the Interlocutory Application No.10388 of 2010, the joining of the petitioner has been refused and the petitioner was relieved from work and was directed to submit the charge to one Geeta Devi. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since she was on medical leave from 1995 till 2007, her joining should be accepted alongwith the salary and other consequential benefits. However, he failed to show that the petitioner had sent any letter for extension of leave after 25.7.1995. Suddenly, in the year 2007, she has submitted her joining report with certain medical certificates. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and a quite different story appears thereafter. One order dated 30.4.1993 has been brought on 4 record as Annexure-‘A’ to the counter affidavit. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in view of the order passed in batch of writ applications bearing C.W.J.C. Nos.6134 of 1990, 9341 of 1991, 7980 of 1991, 7121 of 1991, 1277 of 1991, 8018 of 1992, 2464 of 1992 and 5764 of 1992, enquiry was held regarding all the appointments made by the particular officer since the year 1980 to test their legality or otherwise. Upon enquiry, such appointments were found illegally and made by incompetent authority as the Director-in-Chief, Health Services was the only competent authority to make such appointment on the post of Grade-III. Thus, such appointments were declared illegal and such persons were terminated with immediate effect. It is submitted that the petitioner was one of them. She had represented her case before the concerned authority against aforesaid and her representation alongwith others was considered and was rejected holding that for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the Director-in-Chief was the competent authority and not the Deputy Director, Tuberculosis, who had appointed her by the order dated 26.7.2001 as contained in Annexure-‘A’ to the counter affidavit. 5 A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed in compliance of the order dated 5.1.2011 and it has been stated that there was no question of allowing joining of the petitioner after 13 years of termination of her services. A disciplinary proceeding has already been initiated against the persons who are responsible for receiving her joining report after 13 years of her termination. By way of last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others and batch of writ application reported in 1995(2) PLJR 309, specially pointing out paragraph-48 thereof to show that if the appointment has been made on compassionate ground strictly in accordance with law the State Government should consider the case after holding that appointment on compassionate ground stands on a different footing than the regular appointment. This ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only noted to be rejected because from the order passed by the authority concerned as contained in Annexure- ‘B’ to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent 6 No.3, it is quite clear that she has represented her case before the competent authority and the authority concerned has held that the person, who had issued appointment letter to her, was not the competent authority for such purpose. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that her appointment made on compassionate ground was strictly in accordance with law. In above view of the matter, since the petitioner services were already terminated in the year 1993 itself and her representation was also rejected in the year 2001 by the concerned authority and that order remained unchallenge and, thus, became final, she is not at all entitled for being allowed to join service subsequent thereof in the year 2007. Secondly, it appears that the whole episode of her termination and filing of representation was suppressed by the petitioner in the writ application raising a question mark upon her conduct and on that account also, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. As a result, this writ application stands dismissed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)