IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1878 of 2006 OM PRAKASH PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy For the respondents : Mr. Arshad Alam,SC – IV Mr. Md. Arif, JC to SC - IV --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 17th September, 2008 The petitioner alleges deliberate disobedience of the order dated 9th August, 1999. The single judge by the order dated 9th August, 1999, dismissed the group of writ petitions by observing thus: “In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appropriate course would be to direct the state government to make regular appointments against the available sanctioned class III and Class IV posts under the Leprosy Eradication Scheme and, at the same time, to give certain concession to the working employees treating them as a separate class. As indicated above, there is dispute regarding the identify of the persons who were actually appointed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Pursuant to the earlier notice 377 persons appeared with their claim, in November, 1995, the number swelled to over 1300; there being dispute about the identity of not only the appointees but also the identity of the claimants, their number being indeterminate, it would not be possible or proper to treat all of them as separate class for giving them the concession. It would be sufficient if the concession is extended only to those whose names are figured in any of the lists and have actually worked on the posts for certain period. In the case of Ashwini Kumar vs. State of Bihar and ors., AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1828 = (1997) 2 SCC 1, 2 which related to illegal appointments of Para Medical Staff in the Tuberculosis wing of the Health Department in the State of Bihar, while upholding the decision of the State Government and the High Court regarding the termination of the services of the persons concerned, the Supreme Court have certain concession as enumerated in paragraph 18 of the judgment. In another case the Supreme Court earmarked certain percentage of posts to be filled from amongst the appointees whose appointments were terminated. It would be just and proper – not only from the view point of the petitioner but the department as well – if similar order is passed in the present case. The present case relates to 467 vacancies/posts. The number of vacancies/posts (including these 467 vacancies) might have increased in course of time but it is obvious that the appointees cannot have any claim for appointment against the vacancies which might have occurred later. It would be thus enough if a percentage of 467 vacancies is earmarked for them. Having given my anxious consideration, I am of the view that it would be sufficient if 150 vacancies out of 487 vacancies, which roughly comes to one-third of the total vacancies, are earmarked for them with the rider that only those whose names figure in one of the lists and have worked for a period of five years continuously shall be considered eligible for such vacancies. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, I would , therefore, direct the state government to invite applications for the existing vacancies in class III and class IV posts under the Leprosy Eradication scheme and make regular appointment. Such appointment should be made on the basis of the existing rule or rules as may be framed by the Government. Out of the available sanctioned posts, 150 posts should be earmarked for those whose names find mention in any of the three lists and have worked on the post at least for five years continuously. Those found eligible in the final selection, will be given necessary age relaxation. They will also be entitled to count the period of service already rendered by them on the post for the purpose of retiral benefit but they will not be entitled to claim any inter se seniority over the rest who may be appointed against the remaining vacancies. In the event eligible/suitable candidates are not available, the vacancies shall be filled up from amongst candidates from the open market. The advertisement inviting applications should be published within a period of 2 months of the receipt of copy of this order and the entire exercise should be completed 3 preferably within six months thereafter. As the impugned order dated 8.3.99 does not suffer from any error, during the intervening period, the petitioners will not be allowed to work. If they are allowed to work there may be chance of their continuing in service for indefinite period which would amount to perpetuating a wrong. Therefore, they have to seek appointment like other candidates from open market. It is not possible to grant any further relief than earmarking the vacancies against which they have to compete inter se and giving the aforementioned concessions. As noted at the outset, the writ petitions have been filed by 137 petitioners in all, while some of them have come for direction for inclusion of their names or for payment of salary (they came prior to 8.3.99), the rest of them have come for quashing the impugned order dated 8.3.99. However, the said order dated 8.3.99 being general in nature canceling all appointments made by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, it is obvious that the order covers not only the cases of the latter group of petitioners but also the former group and, indeed, also those who have not approached this court or whose writ petitions might be in the pipeline. The present order, therefore, should cover all such cases, so far as the Department is concerned. It is obvious that those who are not petitioners in these petitions cannot be bound by this order. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed but subject to the observations and directions mentioned above.” 2. That an appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment being LPA. No.1067 of 1999 is not in dispute. 3. The cause has been shown by the respondent no.4 and the following statement has been made in paragraphs 6 to 13: “ That it is humbly submitted that against the judgment passed on 9.8.99 in C.W.J.C. No. 3294/99 Vinod Kumari Sriranjan and others versus the State of Bihar and others, L.P.A. no. 1067/99 was filed. The bench headed by Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court, Patna found the allegation of irregularities in the appointment made by then State Leprosy Eradication officer. In such way, the Hon'ble Court passed an order dated 11.2.2000 in L.P.A. No. 1067/99 with a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the irregularities committed 4 in the appointment made in the Leprosy eradication programme and submit the reports to the Hon’ble High Court. That it is further stated that the Hon'ble Court passed the order in L.P.A. no. 1067/99 on 7.12.2001- “ a chargesheet consequent upon the investigation having been carried out before the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.. Thus the proceeding in this matter stand closed”. In L.P.A. such order has not been passed to reconsider the matter of discharged employees, appointed by the then S.L.O. Dr. Rajendra Prasad. That it is further stated that the Central Government after taking into consideration of the fact that condition of Leprosy has come down to a moderate/ low level, decided to reduce the number on a phased manner. A communication to this effect had been made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India vide letter no. F No. 2 15015/1/2002 L.E.P. (CCD) dated 22.3.2002 and letter no. T-11018/9/2002-Lep (Coord) dated 27.12.2002. That it is further stated that it has been decided to integrate the peripheral staffs of leprosy into general health care system and accordingly the State Govt. has directed to depute the peripheral staff of Leprosy at the unit of general health care i.e. a Primary Health Centres and additional Primary Health Centres. That it is humbly submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances when steps have already been taken to integrate the peripheral staff of Leprosy under General Health Care System, appointment of employees are not possible. That at present the Department is not in a need to appoint any employee under Leprosy Eradication Programme. That even if in future, the Deptt. of Health will be required to appoint any employee in the Leprosy Eradication Programme, then they will be appointed through staff Selection Commission as per the existing rule. No direct requirement is to be made by the department of Health. That it is humbly submitted that in such circumstances, it is not desirable to appoint the discharged employee in the Leprosy eradication programme by the Govt. “ 4. Thus, it is a specific case of the respondent no.4 that 5 in the light of the decision taken by the Central Government, it has been decided to integrate the peripheral staff of leprosy into general health care system and, accordingly, the leprosy department is not in need to appoint any employee under Leprosy Eradication Programme. 5. Although, rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, the stand of the respondent no.4 that steps have already been taken to integrate the peripheral staff of leprosy under general health care system and no new appointment is now possible has not been countered. 6. We are satisfied with the cause shown by the respondent no.4 and, in view thereof, no further order needs to be passed. 7. Contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/