Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar

Having considered the issue in hand here, this Court would find that first of all, the plea of the petitioner that he had not filed an application for the post of Health Worker and his such application was made only for the post of Family Welfare Worker has not been supported by any document. If the petitioner’s application was for the post of Family Welfare Worker he had to produce the receipt of his application in the office of the Commission. As a matter of fact, the advertisement of the Commission also referred to enclosing of the certificate in relation to the two posts of Health Worker and Computer. Thus, this Court would find that the order of Commission dated 8.4.2006 was based on evidence that he was an applicant for the post of Health Worker and that was rejected on 8.4.2006 on the ground that he did not enclosed the required training certificate as prescribed in the advertisement.

That apart from when this issue was raised in CWJC no. 15827 of 2006 this Court did not interfere with the same order dated 8.4.2006 contained in Annexured-7 to that writ petition which is the order herein contained in Annexure-2 of this writ petition. As a matter of fact, in that case the petitioner’s application for the post of Computer only was considered in the 4 light of the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit and the case was disposed of in the letter of the Commission dated 10.12.2007 which reads as follows: “i=kad 1962@vko fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk; ksx Iks0&osVujh dkyst] iVuk&14 izs"kd] lfpo] fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk; ksx] iVukA lsok esa] Jh fcfiu dqekj flag] Jh ih0 ds0 ’kkgh] egkf/koDrk ,oa vk; ksx ds izHkkjh vf/koDrk ds duh; vf/koDrk] iVuk mPp U;k;ky;] iVukA iVuk] fnukad 10 fnlEcj] 2007A F o"k;%& lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 15827@06 iIiw dqekj cuke jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU; egk’k;] funs’kkuqlkj mi; qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd dEI;wVj in ds fy, foKkiu la0&1204 ds fo:) ;kfpdkd(cid:217)kkZ }kjk fn;s x;s vkosnu i= (cid:216)ekad&02674576 dk vLohd‘r i= Hkwyo’k fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA bl vkosnu i= ij fQj ls fopkj fd;k tk; sxkA ekuuh; U;k;ky; dk bl vk’k; dk izkFkZuk ls voxr djk;k tk ldrk gS ,oa okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k tk ldrk gSA fo’oklHkktu fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk; ksx iVukA** As would be apparent from the aforesaid underlined 5 portion the finding of this Court was only in respect of post of Computer.

The writ application, however, was dismissed by recording the content of the aforesaid letter dated 10th December, 2007 which would mean that the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the order dated 08.12.2006 was not allowed. Today the petitioner therefore cannot challenge the same order in this writ application as that would be barred by principle of resjudicata and constructive res-judicata. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)