IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6336 of 2007
BINU KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.9062 of 2007
KRISHNA KANHAIYA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
5. 20.6.2011 The core question which would in
fact decide the whole dispute as with regard
to illegality in the appointment of the
petitioners would rest upon the foundational
fact of power and jurisdiction of the
Superintendent of a Medical College to make
appointment on a Class III post in the scale
of Rs. 4000-6000 and that too by way of
Receptionist in the Medical College.
Though there are some pleadings to
show that the Superintendent had no such
power but then neither of the parties have
produced the relevant Government circular/
Rule prescribing the power and jurisdiction
of the Superintendent of a Medical College
as with regard to making appointment on a
Class III post. From some of the documents
which have been annexed by the petitioners
in reply to the counter affidavit, solicited
by them under the Right to Information Act
2
it would only appeal that there was no
definite norms laid down for appointment on
the post of Receptionist in the Medical
College. A question would, therefore, arise
as to whether the post of Receptionist was
ever sanctioned by the State Government at
any point of time for all these Medical
Colleges and if such sanction was accorded
what was the qualification and mode of
appointment against the aforesaid post of
Receptionist and whether the Superintendent
was exclusively vested power to make
appointment on the said post of
Receptionist.
As all these aspects are silent in
the counter affidavit, this Court would
direct the Director-in-Chief, Health
Services of the Government of Bihar to swear
and file his personal supplementary counter
affidavit answering the aforementioned
queries.
In the said supplementary counter
affidavit the Director-in-Chief having made
his personal enquiry from the office of the
Superintendent of Anugrah Narain Medical
College, Gaya will also disclose detailed
3
facts as with regard to the manner of
appointment of all those nine persons
mentioned in Annexure 1 and the reasons of
retaining the three persons, namely,
Gupteshwar Prasad Singh, Mahendra Prasad
Singh and Pravesh Singh while dispensing
with the service of the petitioners and four
others.
List both the cases after four
weeks under the same heading.
Let a copy of this order be given
to the learned Government Advocate No. IV
for its strict compliance.
(Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)
Surendra/