IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1755 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR ABHAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 4/2/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ application seems to be that even after remand by this Court in the earlier round of litigation the authorities have stuck to their original stand holding that appointment of the petitioner made on 5.7.1989 by the Regional Deputy Director of Health, was void abinitio, in as much as, he had no power to make such appointment. Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Annexure-2, copy of relevant extract of Bihar Health Manual, asserts that such power of appointment was also delegated to the Regional Deputy Director of Health and therefore solitary reason for termination of services of the petitioner is bad. This Court on perusal of extract of Bihar Health Manual would find it difficult to accept the submission of the petitioner for simple reason that there is 2 no mention in Column-4 the authority to also include the Regional Deputy Director, Health. The petitioner, however, submits that entry no. 14 in column 4 regarding Assistant Director now mean Regional Deputy Director of Health because post of Assistant Director of Health was upgraded and nomenclature of the post was changed as Regional Deputy Director of Health. This being essentially a question of fact needs to be looked into by the some authority of the Health Department. Primafacie, whenever there is amendment in the authorization there has to be a notification by the Government to that effect. Counsel says that there is also a notification being notification no. 139 H dated 3.1.1959. However, copy of that notification has not been filed with this writ application. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, respondent no.2, who would 3 personally look into the matter and decide as to whether the Regional Deputy Director of Health who had appointed the petitioner on 5.7.1989 had such power to appoint the petitioner on the said post. In the event it is found that such power was delegated and vested in the Regional Deputy Director, the sole basis for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner on the ground of its illegal would automatically disappear and in that event the petitioner would be entitled for his being reinstated in service. On the other hand, if it is held by respondent no. 2 that appointment of the petitioner was made by an authority (Regional Deputy Director of Health, Magadh Division Gaya) who had no jurisdiction to make such appointment, the decision as with regard to termination of services of the petitioner shall remain infact. In view of the fact that the matter is lingering for the last so many years, the respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of the representation within a period of three months from the date of its filing 4 by the petitioner. With the aforementioned direction and observation this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar