IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1655 of 2006 1. BPSC CHAYANIT CHIKITSAK SANGHARSH SAMITI, PATNA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT DR. RADHA SHARAN PRSAD, SON OF SRI LAL BABU LAL PRASAD, REISDNET OF ROAD NO.10, HOUSE NO.50, NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY, PATNA -13 2. DR. RADHA SHARAN PRASAD, SON OF SRI LAL BABU LAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF ROAD NO.10, HOUSE NO.50, NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY, PATNA-13 3. DR. VIKASH KUAMR, SON OF SRI BIRENDRA NATH JHA, RESIDENT OF L.I.G., 50, HANUMAN NAGAR, PATNA-800020 ……………………………………………….…… PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DEEPAK PRASAD, COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHRAR, PATNA ………..CONTEMNER/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners: - M/s Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Manoj Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Sinha & Indu Bhushan Pandey, Advocates For the State :- Mr. S.K.Ghose,A.A.G. No.II with Mr. Lal Babu Singh, J.C. to A.A.G.No.II *** 12 04.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General No.2 for the opposite parties. This contempt application has been filed alleging violation of the orders of this Court dated 24th June, 2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7121 of 2003 and C.W.J.C. No.12448 of 2003. By the said order, this Court had directed the - 2 - opposite parties to take up the vacancy prior to Ist of August of the year in which the advertisement was made for computation of vacancies of basic grade under the Bihar Health Services and filling up the same from the candidates recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) pursuant to Advertisement No.93/1998. It was stipulated in the order that as the advertisement was published on 5.9.1998, vacancies occurring prior to Ist of August, 1998 could only be filled up on the basis of the said recommendation. However, it was noticed that in the said advertisement 1000 vacancies were advertised but due to passage of time, and upon bifurcation of the State with effect from 15th November, 2000, the number of vacancies which were to be filled up in the newly created State of Bihar had come down by 33%. Therefore, the opposite parties were directed to fill up the vacancies on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission after reducing the advertised vacancies by 33%. It has come on record that the Commission had originally recommended 874 - 3 - candidates of different categories which recommendation was against total 1000 vacancies advertised. However, due to bifurcation, the Commission had to be consulted again for the reduced vacancies which were calculated as 670. Hence, on reference, the Commission recommended only 641 candidates. Mr. S.K. Ghose, A.A.G.No. II, has produced the chronological chart of date-wise development in the matter. From the chart it appears that 641 candidates recommended by the Commission in the year 2007 were separately given opportunity to appear for verification of testimonials. Upon such verification, those who were found eligible were given appointment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the process only 424 candidates have been appointed from the said panel. The grievance of the petitioner is that had the State Government taken into account the original recommendation of 874 candidates by the Commission, many more candidates recommended by the Commission at the first instance would have been considered and would have got appointed. - 4 - It is apparent that such recommendation of 874 candidates was against 1000 vacancies advertised. The number of such vacancies was reduced to 670 upon bifurcation of the State. Therefore, the State Government had requested the Commission to revalidate the recommendation in view of the orders passed by the Courts and in view of the reduced number of vacancies. The Commission thereafter recommended only 641 candidates who have been considered by the opposite parties and the eligible candidates have been given appointment. In such view of the matter, I do not find that any case of contempt for deliberate violation of the orders of this Court is made out in the matter calling for proceeding against the opposite parties for contempt. In the circumstances, the matter is dropped and the contempt application is dismissed. The petitioner-Association, if so advised, will be at liberty to agitate its claims in proper proceeding in accordance with law. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)