IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5410 of 2007 1.Mozafarul Haque Khan, son of Nasrul Haque Khan, resident of village and P.O. Sonbarsa, District- Siwan 2.Shankar Sharma, son of Dwarika Sharma, resident of village Jagdishpur, P.O. Risaura, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 3.Pramatma Prasad, son of Late Shiv Shankar Prasad, resident of village and P.O. Risaura, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 4.Narendra Singh, son of Dina Nath Singh, resident of village and P.O. Bangra, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 5.Kamal Prasad Singh, son of Late Dineshwar Singh, resident of village Baliya Tola, P.O. Pokhra, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 6.Dhruv Prasad, son of Chandradeo Prasad, resident of village and P.O. Balia, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 7.Devi Sharan Rai, son of Late Sukhdeo Rai, resident of village and P.O. Pokhra, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 8.Ram Singar Prasad, son of Late Mansi Prasad, resident of village Khedu Chapra, P.O. Sikatia, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 9.Sachchida Nand Srivastava, son of Vidya Lal, resident of village Kasdeora, P.O. Kasdeora Bangra, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 10.Chhote Lal Sah, son of Bihari Sah, resident of village Kathak Gaura, P.O. Madhopur, P.S. G.B.Nagar (Tarwara), District- Siwan 11.Ram Bahadur Singh, son of Ram Nagina Singh, resident of village and P.O. Deoria, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 12.Lal Bahadur Singh, son of Raj Deo Singh, resident of village Nautan, P.O. Gohpur Bakhrahia, P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar, District- Siwan 13.Chandrika Ram, son of Neur Ram, resident of village Bishunpura, P.O. Risaura, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 14.Baban Prasad Yadav, son of Late Siya Baran Sharan, resident of village Bhalpura, P.O. Nayanpur, P.S. G.B.Nagar, District- Siwan 15.Amir Alam Khan, son of Chand Khan, resident of village Sonbarsa, P.O. Sonbarsa, P.S. G.B.Nagar, District- Siwan 16.Munni Lal Ram, son of Triveni Ram, resident of village Dhobwalia, P.O. Jigarwa, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan - 2 - 17.Gajadhar Singh, son of Late Chhathu Singh, resident of village and P.O. Gohpur, P.S. G.B.Nagar, District- Siwan 18.Maksud Alam Khan, son of Aale Khan, resident of village and P.O. Sonbarsa, P.S. G.B.Nagar, District- Siwan 19.Hemant Kumar Srivastava, son of Lal Narayan, resident of village and P.O. Khamhauri, P.S. G.B.Nagar, District- Siwan 20.Sri Bhagwan Rai, son of Richhan Rai, resident of village Bara Teghra, P.O. Chhota Teghra, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 21.Sukeshwar Pandey, son of Surya Narayan Pandey, resident of village- Sabir, P.O. Paterhi, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan 22.Bachcha Prasad, son of Raghuni Prasad, resident of village Tewya, P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan ……… Petitioners. Versus 1.The Union Of India through the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi 2.The State of Bihar 3.The Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 5.The Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 6.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officedr, Siwan, District- Siwan 7.The Incxharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Maharajganj, District- Siwan ……….. Respondents ----------- 7. 16/02/2010 22 petitioners claim themselves to be working as Public Health Guide on payment of daily stipend. The Scheme of appointment of Health Guide has been annexed by petitioners as Annexure-1. The Scheme itself shows that it is a part time work and on the basis of said engagement they will not have any right to government employment. - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are working as Health Guide since last thirty years and therefore their cases should be considered for absorption in regular government service. This Court is unable to accept that submission in view of clear stipulation in the Scheme that engagement as Health Guide should not be treated as a basis for regular government appointment. By referring to Annexures-10 and 11, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at some stage State Government was contemplating to absorb the services of Health Guide. He submits that petitioners should at least be given liberty to file representation before the appropriate authorities for consideration of their case for appointment in government service or their absorption. No document has been produced on record by the petitioners to show that any policy decision was taken by the State Government in this regard. Therefore, this Court is unable to issue any specific direction to the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners for their - 4 - absorption or employment in government service. However, petitioners will be at liberty to file representation before the respondent authorities and the respondents will be at liberty to consider the same, if filed, in accordance with law. Writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)