Y. V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa. AIR 1983 SC 852—Overruled by State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773.

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The controversy in the writ petitions, from which the above appeals arise, revolve around who is qualified to apply under the notification issued by the Government for selection and appointment of Lab Technicians: whether it is only those having Diploma in Lab Technician course, that too obtained from an Institution recognized by the Government of Bihar; or the persons who obtained such qualifications from anywhere in the country, even those who obtained their Diplomas through distance education, could apply. The selection which was commenced by an advertisement dated 21.06.2015, took a difficult path, by reason of the litigation initiated by those persons continuing as contractual employees. As of now, there are appointments made by virtue of the interim orders passed in the appeals, which appointments are subject to the final decision. We are hence, compelled to take note of the interim orders in the writ petition also before we take up the adjudication in the appeal, which is filed by those diplomates, who obtained their diplomas from the Bihar State Government recognized Institutions. They are aggrieved with the direction of the learned Single Judge to revise the entire merit list and consider the case of the petitioners, who were continuing on contractual posts in the Government run hospitals, for selection and appointment, since they are eligible as per the Bihar Lab Technician Rules, 2005 as Bihar Lab Technician Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (for brevity ' the Rules of 2005' and 'the Rules of 2019' respectively).

2. The advertisement calling for applications was as per the Bihar Lab Technician Cadre Rules, 2014 (for brevity 'the Rules of 2014') which confines the zone of consideration to those diplomates, who obtained their diplomas from the Institutions recognized by the Government of Bihar. It has to be pertinently noticed that the eligibility for selection has expanded considerably by virtue of the interim orders in the appeal, much beyond the advertisement and even the terms of consideration in the writ petition.

3. In the impugned judgment, at the outset, the learned Single Judge observed that an Intervention Application bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2020 filed in one of the writ petitions having C.W.J.C. No. 7175 of 2020, does not merit consideration as the Patna High Court Rules does not permit intervention in support of the writ petition. We fully agree with the observation of the learned Single Judge. But this did not preclude the said intervenors from filing fresh writ petitions, even after the disposal of the present writ petitions, which however, was not done. We say this specifically because we find a lot of Intervention Applications having been allowed in the appeal bringing in more persons into the fray; even those, who were not employed on contractual basis claiming their qualification to be sufficient to be considered for selection and appointment. We make it clear that none of those intervening applicants, other than those who were contractual employees could agitate their claims in the appeals which arise specifically from the disposal of the writ petition filed by such contract employees, who were removed from the zone of consideration by 'the Rules of 2014'. The prayer made by those who had, allegedly, equivalent qualifications, was not one coming within the scope of the writ petitions, all of which were filed by the contractual employees. The claim of the writ petitioners was also that by virtue of their employment in the posts of Lab Technicians in the various Institutions and Hospitals run by the Government, though as contract employees, they had a right to be considered for the vacant posts attempted to be filled up regularly.

4. The first of the writ petitions are C.W.J.C. No. 6761 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 7175 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 7406 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 7414 o