Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.@mdashAs per the last order, heard the parties, for disposal of this writ petition at this stage.
2. Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the notification contained in Memo No. 149 (1) dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure 8) issued by respondent
No. 3, complaining that respondent No. 4 being junior to him was posted as Acting Principal of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College,
Jamshedpur (for short ""M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur"") ignoring the length of service and seniority of the petitioner; and for a direction to
respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider and grant promotion to the petitioner in the higher post of Professor and Principal from the date of eligibility
with all consequential benefits.
In view of the order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to go into the said dispute/claim raised by the petitioner.
3. Mr. A.K. Sinha, appearing for the intervener Dr. Sriram Pratap Sinha submitted as follows. The writ petitioner filed I.A. No. 2377 of 2006 for
restraining the respondents from proceeding pursuant to the interview held on 5/6.7.2006 and due to the order of status quo dated 29.9.2006, the
respondents have stayed their hands for Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad also, though the dispute in the writ petition was regarding M.G.M.
College, Jamshedpur only. As per the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 420 of 2001, the Health Department proceeded to fill up the
posts of Principal and Superintendent at Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad and M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur in regular manner. As
per the Bihar Medical Services Cadre Post and Recruitment Rules, 1997 (for short ""the Rules"") seniority-cum-merit-cum-efficiency is the criteria
for filling up the said posts. As per the said Rules, such posts are to be filled up by selection and not by promotion. A Selection Committee was
constituted before which the petitioner, respondent No. 4, the intervenors --Dr. Sriram Pratap Sinha and Dr. Kameshwar Biswas, all appeared,
but after the Selection Committee made its recommendation, the petitioner filed the said I.A. No. 2377 of 2006. He lastly submitted that the
Government may take decision independently on such recommendations and the parties are always at liberty to challenge the final decision of the
Government.
4. Mr. V.P Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the selection process is bad as the Secretary, Department of Health, who was the
Chairman of the Selection Committee, did not take part in the selection process.
5. Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mrs. Namita Prasad, appearing for the intervenor Dr. Kameshwar Biswas and also for
respondent No. 4 challenged the selection process saying that the selection committee made recommendation overlooking the terms of the
advertisement and experience of the candidates, as per 1990 resolution of the State Government. It was further submitted that Dr. Sriram Pratap
Sinha has been given promotion from 1995, three months after his name was recommended; and that the rules of reservation are not being
followed.
6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the constitution of the Selection Committee. In the Selection Committee, the Secretary, Department of
Health was the Chairman along with two expert/doctor members. The Secretary could not attend the interview on 5/6.7.2006 due to unavoidable
reasons and, therefore, a post facto sanction was given to the two members Committee of the said experts/doctors. The parties took part in the
interview. No final decision has been taken by the Government as yet.
The Government is required to see whether the recommendations of the Selection Committee are as per the law or not. It has to take an
independent decision in accordance with the advertisement, 1997 Rules, the regulation of the Medical Council of India and other
relevant/applicable notification etc.
7. If will be open to the parties to put up their grievances before respondent No. 2 within one week from today. The State Government will take a
final decision in accordance with law and Communicate the same to the parties within five weeks from today. Respondent No. 2 will also decide
the petitioner''s claim of inter se seniority with respondent No. 4.
8. With these observations and directions, this writ petition and all the Inter locutory Application Nos. 2377 of 2006, 3012 of 2006 tiled by
petitioner, 3010 of 2006 and 3011 of 2006 filed by respondent No. 4, 2650 of 2006 and 2651 of 2006 filed by Dr. Sriram Pratap Sinha, 2984 of
2006 filed by Dr. Kameshwar Biswas are disposed off.
It goes without saying that since the writ petition itself has been disposed of, the order of status quo dated 21.9.2006 has lost it''s force.
