Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Binod Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3417 of 2011
---------
1. Dr. Binod Oraon.
2. Dr. Ignatius Kerketta.
3. Dr. Sangita Mundri.
4. Dr. Dipak Kumar Das.
5. Dr. Sharat Chandra Sardar.
6. Dr. Sushila Sundi.
7. Dr. Rustam Kachhap.
8. Dr. Rashmi S.Lakra.
9. Dr. Sanjeev Satyan Kr. Horo.
10. Dr. Panchi Kachhap.
11. Dr. Tarun Josh Lakra.
12. Dr. Shayam Lal Kisku. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. &
Dist-Ranchi.
3. The Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. &
Dist.-Ranchi.
4. The Director, Directorate of AYUSH, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-
Ranchi.
5. The Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family
Welfare Department, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Ranchi.
..... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 2090 of 2013
1. Dr. Moun Mayuri.
2. Dr. Ekramul Rahman.
3. Dr. Sarwar Hasan.
4. Dr. Mustaquin.
5. Dr. Samsher Nazeer ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Director, Directorate of AYUSH, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family
Welfare Department, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner s : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
(in both the cases)
For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I
(in W.P.(S) No. 3417 of 2011)
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III
(in W.P.(S) No. 2090 of 2013)
---------
10/Dated: 31st August, 2021
Heard through V.C.
2. Both these writ applications being heard together
and disposed of by a common judgment.
3. Both these writ applications has been preferred by
the petitioners praying for a direction upon the respondent-
authorities to renew the agreement dated 20.09.2008
(Annexure-4) as per the provision of letter no. 261(3) and
263 (3), both dated 08.08.2008.
4. From the agreement annexed as Annexure -2, it
appears that the agreement in question was initially for two
years and if the services would be found satisfactory than
the said agreement will be extended for another three years
and this renewal of agreement will continue up till the age
of 60 years.
5. Since the agreement has not been renewed within
the stipulated period, as such both these writ applications
are infructuous, inasmuch as the term of agreement has
expired. Even otherwise this Court is of the view that the
writ court is not here to issue mandamus for extension of
agreement.
6. With the aforesaid observations, both these writ
applications stands dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
