SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
CWJC No.17382 of 2024
(15.2.2025)
Prof. (Dr.) Shyam Sundar Gupta ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Pranav Kumar, Shrishti Singh.
For the State : M/s P.K. Shahi, A.G., Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14.
For the Resp. No. 10 : M/s Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., Girish Pandey.
For the Informant : Mr. Shanti Pratap.

Headnote:

Service Law – Seniority – Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking reliefs as seniority of the petitioner has been affected – Petitioner and the respondent no. 10 were appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer and as per the merit list prepared by the Bihar Public Service Commission, the name of the petitioner is reflected at serial no. 86 and the name of the respondent no. 10 is reflected at serial no. 4 – Inter-se seniority would be maintained and it cannot be dependent upon their date of joining – Division Bench has already settled the issue with regard to the inter se seniority of the persons, who were initially appointed as AMO and subsequently, deputed as lecturers – Additional Chief Secretary has rightly allowed the representation of the respondent no. 10 and fixed her seniority accordingly – Memo show that it is not a memo/order rather it is a Sanlekh – Clause 12 of the Sanlekh further shows that the approval of council for ministers was requested only with regard to clause 5 and not at all with the relevant and applicable clause 6 – There is also no statement therein that clause 6 of the Sanlekh has even been approved by the cabinet – Thus, memo does not help the petitioner – Since the representation has been made by the respondent no. 10 on the basis of direction given by court, there was no necessity of hearing of the petitioner at the time of deciding the representation of respondent no. 10 – Therefore, it cannot be said that any violation of principle of natural justice was done while passing the order – No merit in writ petition – Petition dismissed. (Paras 12, 13 & 14)

Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—Heard finally.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:—

(i) To issue an appropriate writ order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the reasoned order bearing memo no. 1191 dated 25.10.2024 issued under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary, Heath Department, whereby and whereunder on the representation of the private respondent no. 10 (Dr. (Prof.) Kumari Uma Pandey) the seniority of the petitioner has been affected and it was decided that the seniority of the private respondent no. 10 will be decided as specified in the merit list prepared by the Bihar Public Service Commission at the time of appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Annexure- P/10).

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the reasoned order bearing memo no. 1191 dated 25.10.2024.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take decision in terms of provisional seniority list issued by the Health Department dated 31.07.2024 till the pendency of the writ application.

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the seniority of the petitioner in terms of provisional seniority merit list issued by the Health Department vide letter no. 793 dated 31.07.2024.

(v) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The brief facts of this case as per pleadings is that the petitioner and the private respondent no. 10 were appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the year 1994. As per the merit list prepared by the Bihar Public Service Commission, the petitioner was placed at serial no. 86 and the respondent no. 10 was placed at serial no. 4. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 10 and other Ayurvedic Medical Officers were deputed to the post of Lecturer vide Notification No. 333 dated 16.05.1997 issued by the Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. Name of the petitioner was at serial no. 9 as lecturer in Shalkya Tantra (Eye, ENR Department), Government Ayurvedic College, Begusarai and the respondent no. 10 was placed at serial no. 19. Subsequently, through notification dated 06.06.2007, Annexure- P/4, the petitioner and similarly situated persons were promoted to the post of reader.

4. One Dr. (Smt.) Shanno Gupta filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2317 of 2006 and one Dr. Birender Kumar Singh also filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No.9885 of 2006. In both the writ applications, the issue was in relation to the final gradation list issued by the Health Department vide notification dated 09.11.2010. Vide order dated 30.01.2012, this Court set aside the said notification with a direction to prepare a fresh gradation list for the purpose of promotion on the post of reader and professor in the Government Ayurvedic Colleges. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2012, the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9885 of 2006 filed an intra court appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 759 of 2012 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.09.2015 disposed of the appeal with certain directions.

5. On the basis of direction given by the Division Bench of this Court, the Health Department issued a notification No. 1175 dated 09.12.2015, a gradation list was published for all categories as identified by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.09.2015. The private respondent no. 10 filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17540 of 2015, which was heard on 05.10.2023 and was disposed of with a direction upon the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department to dispose of the representation filed by the respondent no. 10 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks. The Health Department came out with a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top