IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15589 of 2008 ARCHANA KUMARI, D/O KAILASH SINGH, W/O SANJAY KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-NARAYANPUR, P.S.- HULASGANJ, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD.…………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARIWAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-800014. 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, PARIWAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-800014. 5. DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, JEHANABAD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, JEHANABAD. 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD. 7. CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, JEHANABAD. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, GP-14 and Mr.Subodh Kumar, AC to GP-14. ------------ 3 19.08.2011 Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) in the Jehanabad district pursuant to advertisement published in 2007, as contained in Annexure-1. The contention of the petitioner is that when she applied for her appointment her registration with the Nursing Council was 2 operative. However, when she appeared in the first counselling it had expired and hence her candidature was rejected. She got it renewed and then she appeared in the 2nd and 3rd counselling. Still her candidature was rejected on the ground that it had been rejected earlier. Learned counsel submits that the respondents did not take into account the fact that the ground on which her candidature had been rejected in the first counselling was no longer existing as her registration had already been renewed. Still without applying their mind they mechanically rejected the candidature of the petitioner again and again. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the advertisement was for appointment of A.N.M. on contract basis. Hence, even if it is accepted that at the time of appearing in the 2nd and 3rd counselling petitioner was eligible for appointment she cannot be now appointed pursuant to the said selection process. Learned counsel for the State is correct. Petitioner cannot get any retrospective appointment on the basis of the 3 said advertisement on the ground that her candidature was wrongly rejected earlier. However, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to apply in any fresh selection which may be undertaken by the respondents for appointment of A.N.M. in accordance with law. If she applies, her candidature shall be considered by the respondents on merits and, if she is found eligible she shall be given age relaxation. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)