JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:

(i) Quashing of Advertisement No. 3619/RIMS/ Ranchi dated 07.06.2012 issued by Respondent No.3:

(ii) Restraining the respondents from proceeding with the selection process for appointment of Residents/Sr. Residents/Assistant and Associate Professor in Pediatrics department of RIMS and for reserving one post for the petitioner who has already completed much-much more than three years of satisfactory service as Senior Resident:

(iii) For restraining the Respondent No.2 from filling up the vacancy of Assistant and Associate Professor and also for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor as almost all similarly situated Residents appointed together have been granted promotion as Assistant Professors in different departments of RIMS and now since the petitioner has become entitled to the post of Associate Professor, for considering his case for promotion.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. An advertisement dated 23.03.2004 was published in daily newspaper inviting application for appointment on various posts including the post of Residents/Tutors in different departments. The petitioner having requisite qualification for appointment of Residents/Senior residents applied to the post and pursuant thereto; he was appointed vide letter no. 5569 dated 20.09.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was notified as resident along with other residents working in other departments. Further, vide Memo No. 4844 dated 24.06.2008 the Director has extended the service of the petitioner along with several other senior residents. It also appears that the petitioner has earlier filed writ application being W.P.(S) No. 323 of 2011; however, the same was dismissed due to non-appearance of the counsel and pursuant thereto; the petitioner filed the instant writ application.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the advertisement published in the newspaper as well as in the letter of appointment it was mentioned that the posts were permanent and appointment was on probation for two years. However, at the bottom of letter of appointment, a hand written entry was made to the effect that the post of Resident/Tutor is tenure post for three years though there was no such condition in the advertisement and as such, said entry was meaningless.

The further grievance of the petitioner is that other senior residents, namely Dr. G. Minz was actually appointed after the petitioner on 21.10.2005 has also been granted promotion as Associate Professor on 31.07.2008 even before completion of minimum requirement of three years and the same thing happened with other doctors namely, Dr. B. Kumar, Dr. A. K. Kamal, Dr. Bela R. Kerketta and others. The contention of the petitioner is that these doctors were not even appointed together with the petitioner; rather they were taken on lien from State service and have been granted promotion.

In nutshell, the crux of the grievance is that other similarly situated persons who were appointed along with the petitioner and those who were taken on lien and were given job pursuant to the appointment of this petitioner; all were given promotion as such; a pick and choose method has been adopted by the respondent-RIMS, which is against the settled principle of law. Though, vide Memo No. 4844 dated 24.06.2008; the Director has extended the services of the petitioner along with several other senior residents; however, subsequently, Dr. Abhay Kumar, Dr. Rishi Tuhin Guria, Dr. Sunanda Jha and others were granted promotion as Assistant Professor leaving this petitioner from the fruit of promotion. Thus, pick and choose method has been continued by the Respondent-RIMS.

Further grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Advertisement published on 07.06.2012; that it is against the M.C.I. regulation, inasmuch as, an experience of five years is required and not four