IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6904 of 2010 1. DR. SAFDAR ISMAIL, S/O MD. ISMAIL NANI, R/O VILLAGE- CHEVARA,P.S.- CHEVARA, DISTRICT - SHEIKPURA. 2. DR. PARVEZ AHMAD, S/O ABDUL KHAIN, R/O MOHALLA - AZAD CHAUK,P.S.-BISFI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 3. DR. NESAT AHMAD, S/O ABU LAISH, R/O VILLAGE- CHANDA BARA,P.S.-DHAKA, DISTRICT-MOTIHARI. 4. DR. UMESH KUMAR SINHA, S/O DR. A. SINHA, R/O MOHALLA - DARIYAPUR GOLA, P.S.-PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. DR. MOBIN HASHMI, S/O DR. SAGIR, R/O VILLAGE- CHADWARA,P.S.-CHANDWARA, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT , BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT , BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR CUM NODAL OFFICER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT , BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 03. 31.03.2011 Process for selection of Ayush Doctors was initiated by issuance of an advertisement dated 27.3.2008 in terms of Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter the results were declared on 13.1.2010. These petitioners are aggrieved and want a direction upon the respondents not to make any appointment because in terms of the advertisement and the brochure the validity of the panel so prepared was to expire on 31.3.2010. It is the contention of the petitioners that if the life of panel was fixed by the respondents then how can any appointment be made beyond the life of the panel. This is the question which has been raised at the bar. He, therefore, wants a direction that no appointment should be made from the panel and fresh steps be initiated for recruitment. The stand of the State is that there has been delay 2 in completing the process of selection and appointment for many a reasons and this compelled the State authorities to extend the life of the panel till 30th December, 2010. The said notification has now been brought on record along with the counter affidavit. Exercise thereafter has been carried out for appointment. Counsel for the State submits that it was for bonafide reasons and the circumstances that the life of the panel had to be extended as no appointment could be made within the time-frame fixed due to delay in declaration of the results as well as various other legal issues and disputes which came to be raised about such appointments. It is well settled that generally life of a panel is for a year or till the date so notified by the authorities in this regard. But then the life of the panel or its validity is with the object of making appointments from the short listed candidates after exercise has been completed. The object of creation of a panel is to make appointments from the panel to the posts. Obviously, from the time the advertisement was made and the results were declared, it was close to the expiry of the life of the panel initially laid down. If for unforeseen circumstances, if the request came into existence in January, 2010 then by no stretch of imagination it can be argued that appointment ought to have been made by 31st March, 2010 and since it has not been done, process should be started again.. The Court is mindful of the fact that all such 3 examinations and recruitment process does take time and also entail expenses not only by the candidates but even by the State. If the State therefore could not complete the exercise of making any appointment from the panel by the date initially fixed then they have done the wise thing of extending the life of the panel till 30th December, 2010 as it would give enough time after declaration of result to complete the process of appointment. Taking a hyper technical view of the matter and accepting the submission that the respondents should be pinned down to the date initially indicated in the advertisement, with regard to the life of the panel, when no appointment whatsoever came to be made from the result declared in terms of annexure-1 would lead to farcical situation. Even otherwise this Court is satisfied that there were circumstances available which compelled the State to extend the life of the panel and in this regard they have also issued a notice which is available on record. In the above circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the petitioners that the State be prevented from making any appointment in terms of declared result contained in Annexure-1 or that a direction be issued for initiation of fresh exercise for appointment by issuing a fresh advertisement. The Court can well understand why such a prayer has been made in the writ application because the Court is of the 4 opinion that these petitioners came within the zone of consideration after the exercise had already been initiated and they could join the race for appointment at the time when advertisement was issued. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)