IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15428 of 2004 1. Sushil Kumar Rai, Son of Sri Bisundeo Rai, R/o-Vill. Sareya Chainpatti, P.S.- Paharpur, District-East Champaran. 2. Kanhaiya Choudhary, Son of Sri Sukath Choundhary, R/o-Harnawah, P.S.- Mirganj, Disrict-Gopalganj. 3. Chhedilal Prasad, Son of Gopalji Sah, R/o-Vill.-Hathua Gopalpur, P.S.- Hathua, District-Gopalganj. 4. Nagmani Tiwari, Son of Sri Bhulan Tiwari, R/o-Vill.-Sarari, P.S.-Goriyakothi, District-Siwan. –Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Health Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 6. Deputy Collector, Establishment, Gopalganj. 7. Regional Deputy Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Division, Gopalganj. 8. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj. –Respondents. ----------- 12 19.04.2011 The four petitioners in this writ petition seek quashing of the panel as prepared by the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Gopalganj for filling up Class-IV posts in the district. Their stand is that they had been appointed by the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj as daily wagers on different times. When the petitioners found that some other similar daily wagers were being regularized, they came to this Court demanding equal treatment. This Court ultimately held that if the district authorities intend to make any appointment in Class-IV posts petitioners’ case may be preferentially considered giving petitioners weightage for the experience, their earlier appointment as daily wager and relaxing age bar. Petitioners’ case is that the District Magistrate- - 2 - cum-Collector, Gopalganj issued a notification calling applications for appointment to different Class-IV posts in the district. It is the case of the petitioners that they had individually applied against the said advertisement and their names were also separately recommended by the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj to the Collector but when the panel was prepared and notified in the year 2004, they found that their names were not included therein and, hence, the present writ petition challenging the said fact. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that as separate orders had been passed in other writ petitions directing the District Magistrate, Gopalganj to prepare the panel. The panel having been prepared, there were challenges to it to the District Magistrate that there were discrepancies in the panel and, as such, in those writ petitions liberty was granted to the District Magistrate to revise the panel removing the discrepancies. Panel having been revised, it was published in the year 2007, during pendency of this writ petition, when again petitioners’ name did not figure therein. It is not in dispute that case of petitioners were recommended by the Civil Surgeon who has separately supported this fact in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj has filed a separate counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, he has - 3 - clearly stated that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, there is no evidence that he filed any application at all. Petitioner merely states that he filed an application. In my view, as facts stand, this Court cannot with certainty adjudicate this matter. It is an oath against oath with no corroborative evidence. I, therefore, cannot consider the claim of the petitioner no.1. So far as petitioner nos.2&3 are concerned, the District Magistrate in his counter affidavit has stated that they were not empanelled as they had not annexed necessary experience certificate. Mr. Shivendra Kishore argues that experience certificate was not a mandatory requirement under the advertisement. In my view, he is not wholly correct. As noted earlier, there was a direction to the District Magistrate in earlier writ petitions that petitioners who were daily wagers would be given preferential treatment in view of their earlier service and age relaxation would be accordingly granted to avail this privilege. It was necessary for the petitioners to file papers in support of their earlier service, that is, the experience certificate. Apparently, they did lay claim but did not support it with any document. That being so, their applications were defective and, in my opinion, rightly rejected. We now come to the petitioner no.4. The District Magistrate clearly admits that the name of the petitioner no.4 does appear in an unauthenticated unsigned register but his application is not to be found. For what purpose that register - 4 - was maintained no one knows. Who maintained the register no one knows. That being so, it cannot be said that petitioner no.1, in fact, duly applied for the very purpose that was advertised. The matter is highly controversial on facts, which cannot be resolved by this Court in these summary proceedings. Therefore, in my view, even the petitioner no.4 is not entitled to any relief from this Court. In the result, the writ petition merits no consideration and, is dismissed accordingly. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)