IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1080 of 2011 DR.DHIRENDRA NATH THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioner: Mr.Awanish Kumar Pandey. Advocate. For the State: Mr.N.Nandan, G.P.20. 3 18.3.2011 The petitioner wants quashing of Memo No.25/Gopalganj dated 6.2.2011 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj by virtue of which a so called junior to the petitioner, namely, respondent no.8 was put under charge of the Primary Health Centre at Baikunthpur. Petitioner is aggrieved because he is senior to private respondent no.8 and he cannot be compelled to work under a junior in an arbitrary arrangement made by the Civil Surgeon against whom certain allegations have been made. Learned Senior counsel further submits that he has a right to hold the post as Incharge by virtue of his seniority but also being senior to the person holding the post. Behind the back of petitioner an enquiry was conducted and all kinds of allegations were made, on which he was not given opportunity. Counter affidavit on behalf of the State reveals a different story. There have been complaints against the 2 petitioner in performance of his official duty at the said Primary Health Centre, Baikunthpur which also included allegation of financial irregularities and these facts emerged even in the preliminary enquiry which was carried out after issuing notice to petitioner and a report thereof submitted to the Nodal Officer, at the Directorate. It is not the enquiry, but the conduct of the petitioner and the compelling circumstance which required making of interim arrangement for after all, efficient and honest running administration is a must and no body has a right to hold the system to ransome on the ground of seniority. This Court has difficulty in allowing the petitioner to hold the earlier post and run a Primary Health Centre. If the petitioner has any grievance and if he feels that the materials which have been produced against him have been obtained or created to create prejudice then he has freedom to approach the superior authority concerned, bringing to his notice all the facts who shall take a decision on the issue whether allegations made against the petitioner as incharge of the Primary Health Centre are prima facie correct or not. If the petitioner moves the authority, the authority 3 will take a decision within a period of three months from filing of such representation. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is dismissed. Anilkr.sinha (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)