Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh vs Bhuwan Bhashker Aged About 35 Yr. Son Of ... on 2 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 24 of 2024
----
1.Santosh Kumar Singh, aged about 38, son of Sri Jitendra
Singh, Resident of Qr. No.C1/12, Sector-II, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2.Ratnesh Kumar, aged about 37 years, Son of Sri Ram
Ratan Prasad resident of C/o RIMS staff Qr. No.91 P.O. &
P.S. Bariatu District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. Bhuwan Bhashker aged about 35 yr. son of Laxmi
Narayan, resident of Village-Rusu P.O.&P.S. Kersai District-
Simdega. ... ... Petitioner/ Respondent
2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through its
Director, having office at Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariatu.
3. Director Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through its
Director, having office at Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariatu
ranchi
4. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, s/o Bikram Singh, R/o Hill view
Road no.7 Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariatu, Ranchi
5. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, s/o Yamuna Singh, R/o Qr. No. B-
II,299, Sharma Road P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa Ranchi.
6. Deepak Kumar Pathak, S/o shri Sanjay Kumar Pathak
R/o C/.o Rajeev Kumar Mishra Audrey House, Meyer's Road
near RajBhawan Gate No.2 P.O.Ranchi University P.S. Gonda
District Ranchi.
7. Binita Kumari W/o Sri Anand Kishore Yadav R/o R/o Hill
view Road no.13 Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariatu, Ranchi.
8. Amit Kumar Deepak S/o Shri Laxman Kumar Deepak R/o
Vill-Surid, P.O. Landopath, P.S. Sonahatu Distt. Ranchi.
9. Sonal Singh D/o Jagat Kishore Singh R/o Near main road,
Police Station, P.O.-Barwadih P.S. Main road, Distt- Latehar.
10.Afasna Ruhi D/o Sri Basir Ahemad R/o Vill and P.O.
Boreya, P.S. -Kandi, District- Garhwa.
Performa Respondents/Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 47 of 2024
----
1.Deepak Kumar Pathak, aged about 35 years, son of Late
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, resident of C/o Rajeev Kumar Mishra,
Audrey House, Meyer‟s Road, Near Raj Bhawan, Gate No. 2,
P.O.:-Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
-1-
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
2.Afsana Ruhi, aged abut 30 years daughter of Bashir Ahmad
Resident of village Boreya, P.O. Boreya, P.S. -Kandi, District-
Garhwa, Jharkhand.
3.Sonal Singh, aged about 40 years, daughter of Sri Jagat
Kishore Singh, resident of Near Main Road, Police Station,
Barwadih, P.O. Barwadih, P.S. Barwadih, District Latehar,
Jharkhand.
4.Binita Kumari, aged about 37 years, wife of Sri Anand
Kishore Yadav, Resident of Hill View Road No. 13, Bariatu,
P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
...Respondents/Appellants.
Versus
1. Bhuwan Bhaskar son of Laxmi Narayan, resident of
Village-Rusu P.O Kersai, P.S. Kersai District-Simdega,
Jharkhand. ...Petitioner/Respondent no. 1.
2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through its
Director, having its office at Bariatu, RIMS, Ranchi, P.O.
RIMS, P.S Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, having
its office at Bariatu RIMS., Ranchi, P.O.-RIMS, P.S Bariatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
...Respondents/Respondents
4. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, son of Bikram Singh, Resident of
Hill view Road no.7 Bariatu P.O-RIMS, P.S Bariatu, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5.Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Jitendra Singh, Resident
of Qr. No.C1/12, Sector-II, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6.Ratnesh Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Ratan Prasad resident of
C/o RIMS staff Qr. No.91 P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. Amit Kumar Deepak, son of Sri Laxman Kumar Deepak,
resident of village Surid, P.O.- Landopath, P.S. - Sonahatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Rajiv Kumar, aged about 40 yers, son of Sri Yamuna
Singh, Resident of Qr. No. B-II,299, Sharma Road P.O
Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
Respondents /Proforma Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 84 of 2024
----
1.Shankar Oraon, aged about 36 years, son of Birsa Oraon,
resident of village Chamguru, P.O. Gagi, P.S. Kanke, District
-2-
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Hitesh Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Gopal Marik,
resident of Ward No.2, Haripur, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Ramchandra Seth, aged about 37 years, son of Late Vijay
Seth, resident of village Oredaru, P.O. Landupdih, P.S.
Sonahatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Mukesh Harijan, aged about 36 years, son of Shukdeo
Harijan, resident of village Khiraundhi, P.O. Godda, P.S.
Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand.
5. Anand Oraon, aged about 33 years, son of Sera Oraon,
resident of H. No.1, Mandana Toli, Gurgain, Gurgaon, P.O.
Burmu, P.S. Burmu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Anita Toppo, aged about 41 years, daughter of Late Alexius
Toppo, resident of New Area Morabadi, P.O. Ranchi
University, P.S. Eadalhatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. Nitesh Kumar Satyam, aged about 32 years, son of Lebu
Mahato, resident of village Nagarikala, P.O. Sijua, P.S.
Tetulmari, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
8. Poonam Kumari, aged about 35 years, daughter of Basant
Munda, resident of village Bsuatoli, P.O. Chakla, P.S.
Ormanjhi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
...Appellants.
Versus
1.Bhuwan Bhaskar, son of Laxmi Narayan, resident of village
Rusu, P.O. Kersai, P.S. Kersai, District Simdega, Jharkhand.
...Petitioner / Respondent No.1.
2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through its Director,
having its office at Bariatu, RIMS, Ranchi, P.O. Bariatu, P.S.
Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences,
having its office at Bariatu, RIMS, Ranchi, P.O. Bariatu, P.S.
Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
...Respondents/Respondents.
4. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, son of Bikram Singh, Resident of
Hill View Road No. 7, Bariatu, P.O.-RIMS, P.S. Bariatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Rajiv Kumar, son of Sri Yamuna Singh, Resident of Qr.No.
B-II, 299, Sharma Road, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Deepak Kumar Pathak, son of Late Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
resident of C/o Rajeev Kumar Mishra, Audrey House, Meyer's
Road, Near Raj Bhawan Gate No.2, P.O.- Ranchi University,
P.S. Gonda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
-3-
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
7. Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Jitendra Singh, Resident
of Qr. No. C1/12, Sector- II, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Binita Kumari, wife of Sri Anand Kishore Yadav, Resident
of Hill View Road No. 13, Bariatu, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. Ratnesh Kumar, son of Sri Ram Ratan Prasad, resident of
C/o. RIMS Staff Qr. No. 91, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. Amit Kumar Deepak, son of Sri Laxman Kumar Deepak,
resident of village Surid, P.O. Landopath, P.S. Sonahatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
11. Sonal Singh, daughter of Sri Jagat Kishore Singh,
resident of Near Police Station, Main Road, Barwadih, P.O.
Barwadih, P.S. Barhwadih, District Latehar, Jharkhand
12. Afsana Ruhi, daughter of Bashir Ahmad, resident of
village Arsande Boreya, Kanke, P.O. Boreya, P.S. Kanke,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
...Respondents/ Proforma Respondents.
with
L.P.A. No. 116 of 2024
----
Rajiv Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Yamuna Singh,
Resident of Qr. No. B-II,299, Sharma Road P.O & P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant/ Respondent no. 4
Versus
1. Bhuwan Bhaskar, son of Laxmi Narayan, resident of
Village-Rusu, P.O. & P.S. Kersai, District-Simdega,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondent no. 1/ Petitioner
2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through its
Director, having office at Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariatu,
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, office
at Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariyatu, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, S/o Bikram Singh, R/o Hill view
Road no.7 Bariatu P.O-RIMS., P.S Bariatu, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
-4-
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
5. Deepak Kumar Pathak, S/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Pathak
R/o C/o Rajeev Kumar Mishra Audrey House, Meyer's Road
near Raj Bhawan Gate No.2, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S.
Gonda District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Jitendra Singh, Resident
of Qr. No. C1/12, Sector- II, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. Binita Kumari, wife of Sri Anand Kishore Yadav, Resident
of Hill View Road No. 13, Bariatu, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Ratnesh Kumar, son of Sri Ram Ratan Prasad, resident of
C/o. RIMS Staff Qr. No. 91, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. Amit Kumar Deepak, son of Sri Laxman Kumar Deepak,
resident of village Surid, P.O. Landopath, P.S. Sonahatu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. Sonal Singh, daughter of Sri Jagat Kishore Singh,
resident of Near Main Road, Police Station, P.O. Barwadih,
P.S. Main Road, District Latehar, Jharkhand
11. Afasna Ruhi, daughter of Sri Basir Ahmad, resident of
village and P.O. Boreya, P.S. Kandi, District Garhwa,
Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents/ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Surya Harsh Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
Dr. A.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sharon Toppo, Adv
Ms. Divya, Adv
Ms. Isha Kaushik, Advocate
--------
-5-
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
C.A.V. on 07/08/2025 Pronounced on 02/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. All the appeals have been listed together for analogous
hearing since all the appeals arise out of the common
order/judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 393
of 2020. Therefore, they have heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order/judgment.
Prayer:
2. The instant intra-court appeals, under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent, have been directed against order dated
09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2020, whereby and
whereunder while disposing of the writ petition following
direction has been passed as under paragraphs 18 to 20:
"18.Since the persons who does not deserve to be
appointed are enjoying the fruits of appointment and
those who deserves to be appointed, have been thrown
on road, this Court is of the view that the panel
prepared for appointment of Laboratory Technician is fit
to be scrapped and set aside. The merit list prepared
taking into account the marks obtained in the Skill Test
is also not tenable and hence the said merit list does not
have legs to stand and any appointment from the said
merit list is dehors the rule. However, instead of
quashing the entire selection process, I, hereby, direct
the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list on the
basis of marks obtained in the written test and the
marks awarded for experience. The respondents are
further directed to prepare the panel/ merit list as per
the observations and findings made hereinabove and
make appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
in accordance with law. Earlier appointment to the post
of Laboratory Technician based on the previous merit
list prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the
written test as well as the skill test, in connection with
list of candidates issued vide letter no.
RIMS/Admn./No. 77, Dated 27.01.2020, is hereby
quashed and set aside and any appointment based on
that is also hereby quashed and set aside.
19. Let fresh appointment be made on the post of
Laboratory Technician considering the fresh merit list
prepared on the basis of written marks and experience.
Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a
copy of this order.
20. The writ petition stands allowed with
aforementioned observations and directions."
3. Thereafter, one C.M.P. No. 112 of 2024 was filed for
modification of order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.
393 of 2020 to the extent that in place of letter no.
„RIMS/Admn. No. 77, dated 27.01.2020‟, final list of selected
candidates as contained in „Memo No. 4046/ RIMS, dated
20.10.2020‟, may be quashed and set aside. The learned
Single Judge, considering the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application. For
ready reference, order passed in C.MP. No. 112 of 2024 is
quoted as under:
"1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Instant application has been filed by the petitioner
with a prayer for modification of order dated 09.01.2024,
passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2020 to the extent
that in place of letter no. RIMS/Admn. No. 77, Dated
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
27.01.2020, final list of selected candidates as contained in
Memo No. 4046/ RIMS, Dated 20.10.2020, may be quashed
and set aside.
3. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel representing
the petitioner strenuously urges that initially writ petition
was filed for quashing part of list of selected candidates
issued vide letter no. RIMS/Admn. No. 77, Dated 27.01.2020
[Annexure-11 to the writ petition]. However, during pendency
of the writ petition, final list of selected candidates was
published vide Memo No. 4046/ RIMS, Dated 20.10.2020
and as such an interlocutory application/amendment petition
was filed vide I.A. No. 5706 of 2020, which was allowed
vide order dated 05.11.2020 but the same has not been
quashed in the order dated 09.01.2024, passed in W.P.(S)
No. 393 of 2020. Learned counsel further argues that no
appointment has been made on the basis of list of selected
candidates issued vide letter no. RIMS/Admn./ No. 77,
dated 27.01.2020 and as such it would be expedient in the
interest of justice to modify the order dated 09.01.2024 to
the extent that in the place of "RIMS/Admn. No. 77, Dated
27.01.2020", final list of selected candidates as contained in
"Memo No. 4046/ RIMS, Dated 20.10.2020" be quashed in
para-2 and para-18 of the order dated 09.01.2024, passed
in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2020.
4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing
RIMS very candidly submits that in the original writ petition
and amendment petition, such prayer has been made and it
is upon this Court to pass order on modification though intent
of the order is very clear. Learned counsel further argues
that the order passed by this Court has been challenged
before the Hon‟ble Division Bench but he is not able to give
case number or present status.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering fact
and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The
order dated 09.01.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.
393 of 2020 is modified to the extent that to the extent that
in the place of "RIMS/Admn. No. 77, Dated 27.01.2020",
final list of selected candidates as contained in "Memo No.
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
4046/ RIMS, Dated 20.10.2020" be quashed in para-2 and
para-18 of the said order. The dated 09.01.2024, passed in
W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2020 is modified to the extent indicated
above.
6. This CMP is accordingly allowed."
Factual Matrix:
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the
writ petition and incorporated in the impugned order, reads
as under:
5. An advertisement no. 955(A), dated 08.03.2019 was
published for appointment on various Grade-III posts
including the post of Laboratory Technician in RIMS followed
by Corrigendum no. 1097, dated 16.03.2019. The maximum
age prescribed for unreserved category was fixed as 35 years
and the essential qualification was I.Sc./10+2 (Science) with
Degree/ Diploma in Laboratory Technician and the candidate
must be registered with State Paramedical Council.
Petitioner, a local resident of State of Jharkhand, was
fulfilling all the requisite criteria and as such submitted duly
filled up application form in prescribed format within the
prescribed time. On 16.09.2019, a list of eligible candidates
for the post of Laboratory Technician was published and the
candidates were instructed to appear in the written exam
scheduled to be held on 21.09.2019. After the examination,
the result was published on 30.12.2019. Thereafter,
pursuant to the office order dated 30.12.2019, objections
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
were invited from the aggrieved candidates relating to marks
obtained by them till 04.01.2020 and the dates were also
announced for documents verification and skill test.
Subsequently, the notice dated 06.01.2020 was issued
showing petitioner at Sl. No. 14 in general category with 47.5
marks. After verification of documents, petitioner was found
fit for appointment and the list of candidates were issued on
08.01.2020 again showing petitioner at serial no. 14.
Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the skill test on
09.01.2020. However, it is alleged that instead of skill test,
interview was conducted by the respondents. Thereafter,
provisional merit list of selected candidates for appointment
to the post of Laboratory Technician was published for which
notice was issued vide RIMS/Admn./ No. 77 dated
27.01.2020. From the provisional merit list dated
27.01.2020, it is apparent that the candidates at Sl. No. 7, 10
to 17 under the General Category have secured less marks
than the petitioner but they have been selected provisionally
for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician. The
name of respondent no. 3 appears at serial no. 17 under
General category, although said respondent no. 3 had
secured 33.5 and was at serial no. 40, which is apparent
from the notice dated 08.01.2020 whereas petitioner had
secured 47.5 marks and was placed at serial no. 14 but was
- 10 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
not selected for appointment. Respondents published fresh
list of selected candidates as contained in Memo NO. 4046/
RIMS, dated 20.10.2020. Grievance of the petitioner is that
out of the selected candidates, the candidates namely Rajiv
Kumar, Deepak Kumar Pathak, Santosh Kumar Singh, Binita
Kumari, Ratnesh Kumar, Amit Kumar Deepak, Sonal Singh
and Afsana Ruhi had got marks lesser than the petitioner
and despite that their names find place in the final list dated
20.10.2020. In the said list, name of respondent no. 3 Shashi
Ranjan in writ petition is not there. The final list selecting
candidates having secured marks lesser than the petitioner is
bad, illegal and as such, petitioner has approached the writ
court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The learned writ court, after hearing the parties, allowed
the writ petition and quashed the list of selected candidate
issued vide memo/letter no. RIMS/Admn./No. 77 dated
27.01.2020, and held any appointment based on that is also
hereby quashed and set aside; and further direction was
given that let fresh appointment be made on the post of
Laboratory Technician considering the fresh merit list
prepared, on the basis of written marks and experience,
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
- 11 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
7. It needs to refer herein that during pendency of the said
writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 393 of 2020, final list of selected
candidates was published vide Memo No. 4046/ RIMS dated
20.10.2020 by the Respondent, thereafter an interlocutory
application/amendment petition was filed vide I.A. No. 5706
of 2020, which was allowed vide order dated 05.11.2020 but
the same has not been quashed in the order dated
09.01.2024, passed in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2020.
8. Thereafter, one C.M.P. No. 112 of 2024 was filed for
modification of order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.
393 of 2020 to the extent that in place of letter no.
„RIMS/Admn. No. 77, dated 27.01.2020‟, final list of selected
candidates as contained in „Memo No. 4046/ RIMS, dated
20.10.2020‟, may be quashed and set aside.
9. The learned writ court, while considering the
submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner
that no appointment has been made on the basis of list of
selected candidates issued vide letter no. RIMS/Admn./ No.
77, dated 27.01.2020 and as such it would be expedient in
the interest of justice to modify the order dated 09.01.2024 to
the extent that in the place of "RIMS/Admn. No. 77, Dated
27.01.2020", final list of selected candidates as contained in
"Memo No. 4046/ RIMS, Dated 20.10.2020" be quashed, has
- 12 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
allowed the CMP and accordingly modify the para-2 and
para-18 of the order dated 09.01.2024.
10. In the instant appeal the order dated 09.01.2024 has
been assailed.
Submission of the appellants:
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
as per Rules formulated by the State Government under
Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide notification as
contained in memo no. 192 (11) dated 31.07.2015, the
recruitment of Paramedical Staffs including Laboratory
Technician was conducted by the Five Member Selection
Committee constituted by the Director, RIMS, in which, the
appellants along with the private respondents and other
eligible candidates participated and after going through the
due selection process, the appellants were appointed on the
post of Laboratory Technician in RIMS, Ranchi and since
then they are discharging their duty with utmost satisfaction
to the authority concerned.
12. Submission has been made that the writ petitioner
participated in the selection process without any demur or
raising any objection or protest and when he failed to secure
place in the final merit list, he approached this Court by filing
writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 393 of 2020, which was
- 13 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
allowed vide order dated 09.01.2024, directing to prepare
fresh merit list, even most of the appellants herein were
neither impleaded in the writ petition nor any opportunity of
hearing was granted to the appellants. In this regard,
submission has been made that list of all those candidates
was on public domain and not it was a large number of
successful candidates, so it was obligatory upon the writ
petitioner to make all successful candidates party before the
learned writ Court but purposely all the appellants
[successful candidates] were not made party.
13. Submission has been made that appointment on the
post in question has been made in strict compliance of the
Statute and Regulations of RIMS by the five-members
Selection Committee duly constituted by the Director, RIMS,
who is appointing and administrative authority of Class III
and Class IV in RIMS.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that
respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) once participated in the
process of selection and on being declared unsuccessful
cannot turn around and challenge the selection process since
once participated in the selection process, the writ petitioner-
private respondent shall be deemed to have accepted the
selection process, which is in terms of the Statute and
Regulations of RIMS, Ranchi. Therefore, the principle that
- 14 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
„once the game is over, the rule cannot be changed‟ will be
applicable in the case at hand but that aspect of the matter
has not been appreciated by learned Single Judge.
15. The learned Single Judge has also failed to consider that
the provision of Skill Test in appointment on the post of
Laboratory Technician was recommended by the five-member
selection committee duly constituted by the competent
authority and the skill test so conducted cannot be treated to
be interview as skill test relates to the ability to use and
handle complex laboratory equipment, as such the skill test
was necessitated to be conducted for the post of Laboratory
Technician.
16. Further submission has been made that criteria for
evaluation of the candidates performance in the selection
process for a particular post is the prerogative of the
appointing authority and under domain of the employer
considering the nature of work to be performed by the
successful candidate.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far
enquiry which was conducted on the allegation of
irregularities committed in the process of selection is
concerned, in which, it is nowhere stated that there was any
illegalities committed in the process of selection, rather some
irregularities were pointed out and in a suggestive measure, it
- 15 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
has been directed by the State to publish fresh merit list so
far the post of Laboratory Technician is concerned but the
learned Single Judge without considering the content of the
enquiry report has given finding that it smacks of favouritism
and nepotism but in the entire enquiry report there is no
such finding. Therefore, submission has been made that the
learned Single Judge has erred in coming to such conclusion,
which requires interference by this Court.
18. Submission has been made it is not a case where any
allegation either has been made upon the selection committee
or on the candidates of malpractice or else, rather, some
procedural irregularities has been pointed out, which cannot
be said to be illegalities.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted
that now the appellants have served for more than 5 years in
service and even accepting there was any lacuna in selection
process, then also for the fault of others, the appellants
cannot be made to suffer.
20. Further, submission has been made that as of now even
some of the appointees have crossed the maximum age, as
such, after serving for a long period of more than five years, if
any adverse order would be passed, they would render jobless
and would lost their future prospect also.
- 16 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
21. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of their
submission has relied upon the following judgments :
State of Assam and Others Versus Arabinda Rabha
and Other reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 523
Ashok Kumar and Another Versus State of Bihar
and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357
Poonam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779
Vikas Pratap Singh and Others Versus State of
Chhattisgarh and Others reported in (2013)14 SCC
Submissions on behalf of Private Respondent(s):
22. Learned counsel for the private respondent has
defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
submitted that respondent no.1/writ petitioner secured more
marks than the selected candidate(s) but was not selected for
appointment only because the respondent-authorities had
conducted skill test, which was in the form of interview, and
the same was added with the marks obtained in the written
test as well as marks secured against the experience and
after adding the same, final merit list was prepared.
23. It has been submitted that the said action of the
respondents-authorities is not permissible in terms of the
guidelines of Government of India adopted by the State of
Jharkhand issued vide Letter No. F. No. 39020/09/2015 -
Estt. B, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance
and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training),
- 17 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
Government of India, wherein it has clearly been mentioned
that interview will not be conducted for appointment against
the Grade-B, C and D (Non-gazetted) posts.
24. Further submission has been made that the skill test is
different from interview and even the same may be conducted
by the recruiting agencies but these tests are of qualifying in
nature and assessment ought not be done on the basis of
marks obtained by a candidate in the skill test. But, the
respondents-RIMS, in deviation to the relevant rules and
terms of advertisement conducted skill test only in order to
make favour of the candidates of its choice.
25. Further submission has been made that even there is
no provision of skill test neither in the rule nor in the
advertisement but in the midst of selection process the
provision of skill test has been made which is against the
principle that the „rules of game cannot be changed when
game is over‟. But, here in utter violation of the said principal
skill test has been conducted and marks of which has been
added in the final merit list, only with a view to oust the writ
petitioner -respondent no. 1 and select the candidates of the
choice of the respondents-authorities.
26. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in support of his
case has relied upon following judgment:
- 18 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
Ajay Kumar Shukla and Others Versus Arvind Rai
and Others reported in (2022)12 SCC 579
Submission on behalf of respondent-RIMS
27. Learned counsel for the respondents-RIMS has
submitted that as per Regulations, 2014, the Director, RIMS
is the appointing authority of Class-III and Class IV posts in
RIMS. There is no provision in RIMS Act/Rules/Regulations
with regard to qualifications and procedure to be followed for
the appointment of Class III and Class IV staff. In such a
situation, the Director, RIMS has all power and authority to
law down the qualifications and procedure for the
appointment of Class III and IV posts.
28. It has been submitted that though in the case at hand
i.e., for appointment on the post of Lab Technician, skill test
is necessary and even if it is treated to be interview, then also
it would not render the selection process invalid and illegal.
Under Section 29 of the RIMS Act, 2008, the State
Government has authority to issue directives/guidelines to
RIMS for attainment of its goal but the State has not issued
any instruction/guideline/directive for not holding
interview/skill test as part of selection process.
29. Submission has been made that the Director, RIMS
constituted a committee to make recommendation with
regard to procedure to be followed for the
- 19 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
selection/recruitment of Class III staffs in RIMS and they
have recommended that the merit be prepared on the basis of
- Written Test: 50 marks; For experience: 30 marks; Skill test:
20 marks i.e., in total 100 marks.
30. Further submission has been made that the writ
petitioner-respondent no. 1 took part in the skill test without
making any protest and after being declared unsuccessful
and got lesser marks in skill test, it is not left open for him to
turn around questioning the legality and validity of skill test
or process of selection.
31. Further submission has been made that in the skill test
held on 09.01.2020, the candidates were awarded marks
ranging from 01 to 18.5 out of total 20 marks and for this
several complaints were made by the candidates concerned.
Therefore, the State Government conducted an enquiry by
appointing enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry and
submitted its report. Accordingly, the State Government
directed the respondent-RIMS to take certain corrective
measures with regard to the alleged irregularities.
32. Pursuant thereto, the Selection Committee of RIMS, in
its meeting dated 10.07.2020, has realized that the marks
awarded on 09.01.2020 require moderation and revision in
view of norms in such matters followed by Uttar Pradesh
- 20 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
Public Service Commission and Jharkhand Public Service
Commission.
33. To ensure fairness to the appearing candidates and
reduce the element of subjectivity it was resolved to moderate
the marks in Skill Test awarded on 09.01.2020 and limit it
between 25% (5) and 75% (15) out of the total marks of 20 in
the skill test. Accordingly, the marks awarded earlier on
09.01.2020 were moderated and revised and accordingly final
list of selected candidates as contained in "Memo No. 4046/
RIMS, dated 20.10.2020 was published. As a result of such
moderation even the marks of writ petitioner-respondent no.
1 was revised from 02 to 05 but even then, he did not reach
to the merit.
34. Further submission has been made that it is not a case
that where even any illegality has been pointed out rather
some irregularities have been pointed out, which have been
cured and after that final result was published, as such the
appointment made in favour of the appellants requires no
interference by this Court.
Analysis
35. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the
finding recorded by learned Single Judge as also the
pleadings available on record and annexure appended
therewith.
- 21 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
36. However, before entering into the legality and propriety
of the impugned order, it needs to refer herein the admitted
factual aspect of the matter.
37. The „Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi‟ is an
autonomous institute under the Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of
Jharkhand. The recruitment/ appointment, promotions of
staffs are regulated by the provisions as contained in the
RIMS Act, 2002; RIMS Rules, 2002 and RIMS Regulations,
2014.
38. In exercise of powers vested under Section 31 read with
Section 29 of the RIMS Act, 2002, the State Government has
made Para Medical Staff Appointment Promotion and Service
Condition Rules, 2015 [Rules, 2015] and notified the same
vide Memo No. 192(ii) dated 29.07.2015.
39. The qualification, procedure and modality for
appointment of all Para Medical Staff, including the
Laboratory Technician i.e. the post in question, has been
spelt out in Clause No. 4 of the Rules, 2015. The clause 4(III)
delineates the procedure for selection of Para Medical Staff
including Laboratory Technician. For ready reference, clause
4 of the Rules, 2015 is quoted as under:
4- HkÙkhZ@fu;qfDr
- 22 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
lh/kh HkÙkhZ ,oa izksUufr }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk
ikjkesfMdy dkWmafly vkWQ >kj[k.M] QkesZlh dkmafly] >kj[k.M] }kjk
fu/kkZfjr gSA mlds vkyksd esa laoxZ esa fu;qfDr izfØ;k fuEu izdkj gksxh%&
ikjkesfMdy dfeZ;ksa ¼;Fkk&iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd] QkekZflLV] 'kY; d{k
lgk;d] ifj/kkid½ ds inksa ij lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr lHkh dehZ ml
in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr ds fy;s ik= gksxk] ;fn %&
I) mlus bl fu;e ds v/khu fu;qfDr dh frfFk dks ikjkesfMdy dfeZ;ksa
¼;Fkk&iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd] QkekZflLV] 'kY; d{k lgk;d] ifj/kkid½ ds in
ij fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh ;Fkk >kj[k.M jkT; iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd ¼HkÙkhZ]
izksUufr ,oa vU; lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2013 >kj[k.M jkT; QkekZflLV
laoxZ ¼HkÙkhZ] izksUufr ,oa vU; lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2013 vFkok ,rn~
fo'k;d vkns'k ds v/khu fu;qfDr ds fy;s vkisf{kr vgÙkkZ ds lkFk&lkFk
foKkiu ds vkyksd esa vgÙkkZ izkIr dj yh gksA
1- iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd ds fy;s eSfVªd@vkbZ0 ,l0 lh0 ds lkFk jkT;
ljdkj ¼>kj[k.M@fcgkj½ ds izf'k{k.k laLFkku vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj ls
ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkkuksa ls iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd izf'k{k.k mÙkhZ.k gksuk
vko';d gSA Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; }kjk ekU;rk
izkIr laLFkku ls ftlus esfMdy ySc Vsdfuf'k;u dk U;qure ,d o'kZ dk
izf'k{k.k izkIr fd;k gks os Hkh iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd ds in ds fy;s mEehnokj
gks ldrs gSaA ,sls mEehnokj tks >kj[k.M ds fuoklh gksa ijUrq lafonk ij
fu;qfDr fd;s x;s gksa rks oks Hkh fu;fer fu;qfDr ds ik= gks ldrs gSaA fdUrq
;g ubZ fu;qfDr ekuh tk,xh ,oa iwoZ dh lsok dh x.kuk fdlh foÙkh; ykHk
vFkok izksUufr ds iz;kstukFkZ ugha dh tk,xhA fu;fer fu;qfDr dh dkjZokbZ
[kqys foKkiu ds ek/;e ls dh tk,xhA
2- QkekZflLV ds fy;s eSafVªd@vkbZ0 ,l0 lh0 ds lkFk jkT; ljdkj ds
QkesZlh laLFkku ls fMIyksek bu QkesZlh dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vko';d gS
rFkk QkesZlh dkmafly] >kj[k.M ls fucaf/kr gksuk vko';d gSA
3- 'kY; d{k lgk;d ds fy;s eSfVªd@vkbZ0 ,l0 lh0 ,oa ifj/kkid ds
fy;s eSfVªd ds lkFk jkT; ljdkj ds izf'k{k.k laLFkku ls izf'k{k.k vko';d
gSA
4- vkosnd dks Medically Fit/Physically Sound gksuk vko';d gS]
vkSj
- 23 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
II) bl fu;ekoyh ds izo`Ùk gksus ds ckn izFke fu;qfDr esa fjEl 'kklh ifj'kn~
dks mez {kkUr djus dk vf/kdkj gksxk ¼dk;Zjr izR;sd o'kZ ds fy, ,d o'kZ
dh NwV rFkk ikjkesfMdy dfeZ;ksa dks iwoZ ls dk;Zjr vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij
vad nsus dk izko/kku dj ldsxh½
III) ikjkesfMdy dfeZ;ksa ds fofHkUu inksa ij [kqys foKkiu ds vk/kkj ij
lh/kh HkÙkhZ jktsUnz vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] jk¡ph ds xfBr p;u lfefr }kjk
vk;ksftr vUrohZ{kk ds fy, dqy vadksa dh la[;k ¼ekSf[kd@lk{kRdkj esa 50
vad] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa 30 vad rFkk vuqHko ds fy, 20 vad½ ds vk/kkj
ij dh tk,xhA mlesa jkT;Lrjh; vkj{k.k jksLVj ykxw gksxk] tks jkT;
ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr gSA
40. Clause 9 of the said Rules, 2015 says that the Director,
RIMS will be the administrative authority of the Para Medical
Cadre. Further, at clause 11, it has been stated that any
condition which is not mentioned in this Rule then in that
situation, the direction of Governing Body will be effective
and it will be treated to be part of the Rule. For ready
reference, the clause 9 and 11 are quoted as under:
9- iz'kklfud fu;a=.k %& ikjkesfMdy laoxZ ds lHkh inksa ij
iz'kklfud fu;a=.k funs'kd] fjEl] jk¡ph dk jgsxk ,oa os gh buds
laoxZ fu;a=.k izkf/kdkj gksxa sA
11- izdh.kZ %&
1- vU; ekeys ftuds laca/k esa mij ds [k.Mksa esa dksbZ mica/k ugha
fd;k x;k gS ml ekeys esa 'kklh ifj'kn~ }kjk fn;k x;k funsZ'k
izHkkoh gksxkA
2- 'kklh ifj'kn~ }kjk fuxZr dksbZ Li'Vhdj.k ;k dk;Zikyd vkns'k
bl fu;ekoyh dk vax ekuk tk;sxk
41. In the definition Clause of the Rule, it is mentioned that
the Director, RIMS would be the appointing authority of the
Para Medical Cadre.
- 24 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
42. Accordingly, an advertisement no. 955(A) dated
08.03.2019 was published for appointment on various Grade-
III and Grade IV posts, including the post of Laboratory
Technician in RIMS followed by Corrigendum no. 1097, dated
16.03.2019.
43. The eligibility criteria of the post in question i.e.,
„Laboratory Technician' has been mentioned at serial no.
34, which reads as under:
"Laboratory Technician
I. Essential Qualification: Matric/Diploma/Degree Course
in Medical Lab Technician.
Candidate must be registered in State paramedical council.
II. Desirable Qualification & Experience
At least 5 years experience in 500 hundred bedded hospital."
44. However, the same was modified vide corrigendum no.
1097 dated 16.03.2019, and the essential qualification was
changed to the effect that „I.Sc/10+2 (Science) with
Degree/Diploma in Laboratory Technician. Candidate must be
registered in State paramedical council.‟
45. The Director, RIMS vide memo no. 4073 dated
26.07.2019 constituted a Screening Committee for the
selection of the suitable candidate. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioners along with the private respondents participated in
process of selection. On 16.09.2019, a list of candidates for
the post of Laboratory Technician was published and the
candidates were directed to appear for the written test
- 25 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
scheduled to be held on 21.09.2019. Thereafter, on
30.12.2019, a list was published showing the marks obtained
by the candidates in written examination as well as marks
obtained on the basis of experience.
46. The respondent-RIMS vide office order dated 30.12.2019
invited objections from the aggrieved candidates relating to
the marks obtained till 04.01.2020 and it is stated that after
deciding the claim of one or the other candidates, the list of
eligible candidates shall be published on the website. Further
in the said letter, the date for verification of document was
fixed on 08.01.2020 and date of skill test was scheduled on
09.01.2020.
47. Pursuant, thereto the writ petitioner along with other
candidates appeared for document verification and also
appeared for „Skill Test‟ on 09.01.2020. However, the writ
petitioner-respondent no.1 disputes and submits that it was
not skill test rather it was in the form of interview against the
condition as stipulated in the advertisement and rules of
recruitment.
48. Pursuant thereto, a final list of selected candidates for
appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician was
published vide letter dated 27.01.2020, in which, the name of
the writ petitioner-respondent does not find place.
- 26 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
49. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached this
Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed the
writ petition on 04.02.2020.
50. In the meantime, several complaints were received by
the State Government with respect to the irregularities
committed by the respondents-RIMS in the appointment
made on different post of para medical staffs advertised by
Advertisement No. 955(A) and 955(B) including the post of
Laboratory Technician.
51. Accordingly, the State Government got an enquiry
conducted by the enquiry officer, who submitted report
pointing out certain irregularities alleged to have been
committed by RIMS in the matter of appointment. For ready
reference, the relevant portion of the enquiry report is quoted
as under:
foHkkxh; Kkikad 64¼11½ fnukad 19-02-2020 ls fjEl] jk¡ph ds
foKkiu la[;k 955¼A½ ,oa 955 ¼B½ }kjk r`rh; Js.kh ds rduhdh
,oa xSj rduhdh inksa ij dh x;h fu;qfDr esa vfu;ferk ls lacaf/kr
tk¡p izfrosnuA
mDr ds vkyksd esa fjEl] jkaph ds i=kad 704 fnukad 26-02-
2020 ds }kjk lanfHkZr fu;qfDr ls lacfa /kr dkxtkr dqy 133 i`'B
¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ esa izkIr gqvkA izkIr dkxtkr ,oa lwpuk ds
voyksdu ds i'pkr fu;qfDr ls lacfa /kr izkIr rF; ds vkyksd esa
iqu% i=kad 126¼3½ fnukad 06-05-2020 }kjk funs'kd fjEl] jk¡ph ls
lwpuk ekaxk x;kA ftlds vkyksd esa fjEl jk¡ph ds i=kad 225
fnukad 13-05-2020 }kjk dqy 59 i`'B ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ esa lwpuk
- 27 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
miyC/k djk;h x;h] izkIr lwpuk ds voyksdu ,oa tk¡p ls
fuEukafdr rF; lkeus vk;k gS %&
35- Laboratory Technician ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq jktsUnz
vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] jk¡ph ikjkesfMdy dfeZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr] izksUufr
,oa lsok 'krZ fu;ekoyh 2015 xfBr gSA fu;ekoyh esa fu/kkZfjr
;ksX;rk ls fjEl] jk¡ph ds foKkiu esa fuEuor~ fHkUu ik;k x;k%&
,El }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk fjEl] jk¡ph ds foKkiu esa vafdr
;ksX;rk
iz;ksx'kkyk izkoSf/kd ds fy;s Essential Qualification:-
eSfVªd@vkbk0,l0lh0 ds lkFk jkT; 1. I.Sc./10+2 (Science) with
ljdkj ¼>kj[k.M@fcgkj½ ds izf'k{k.k Degree/Diploma in Laboratory
laLFkku vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj ls ekU;rk Technician.
izkIr fdlh laLFkkuksa ls iz;ksx'kkyk 2. Candidate must be registered
izkoSf/kd izf'k{k.k mrhZ.k gksuk vko';d in State Paramedical Council.
gSA Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku Desirable Qualification &
fodkl ea=ky; }kjk ekU;rk izkIr Experience:-At Least 5 years
laLFkku ls ftlus esfMdy ySc experience in 500 Hundred
Vsdfuf'k;u dk U;qure ,d o'kZ dk
Bedded hospital.
izf'k{k.k izkIr fd;k gks os Hkh iz;ksx'kkyk
izkoSf/kd ds in ds fy;s mEehnokj gks
ldrs gSaA
fjEl] jk¡ph }kjk vius Lrj ls Desirable Qualification &
Experience: - "At Least 5 year‟s experience in 500
hundred Bedded hospital." tksM+k x;kA
52. Pursuant thereto, the Principal Secretary, Department
of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of
Jharkhand vide letter no. 153(11) dated 15.06.2020 issued
directives to RIMS to take certain corrective measures with
regard to alleged irregularities. The relevant portion of letter
is quoted as under:
izs'kd]
- 28 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
MkW0 furhu dqyd.khZ]
ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo
lsok es]a
funs'kd]
fjEl] jk¡phA
jk¡ph] fnukad&15-06-20
fo'k;&fjEl] jk¡ph }kjk izdkf'kr foKkiu la0 955 ¼,½ ,oa
¼ch½ }kjk r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ oxhZ; inksa ij dh xbZ fu;qfDr esa
vfu;ferrk cjrus ds laca/k esaA
egk'k;]
mi;qZDr fo'k; ds laca/k esa fofHkUu L=ksrksa ls dbZ
ifjokn i= i= gksus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; vkns'k Kkikad 64 ¼11½
fnukad 19-02-2020 }kjk foHkkxh; fo'ks'k lfpo dh v/;{krk esa tk¡p
lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gSA tk¡p lfefr }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k
x;k gS fd fjEl esa foKkiu la0 955 ¼,½ ,oa ¼ch½ }kjk r`rh; ,oa
prqFkZ oxhZ; inksa ij dh xbZ fu;qfDr esa leqfpr izfØ;kvksa dk ikyu
ugha fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa dk
Hkh mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA mDr ds vkyksd esa fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa
ij dkjZokbZ visf{kr gS%&
1- loZizFke fjEl ds 'kklh ifj'kn~ ds vuqeksnu ls lewg ^x*
,oa ^?k* ds inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq fu;ekoyh xfBr dh tk;
rFkk ftu inksa ds fy, fu;ekoyh miyC/k gS] mDr fu;ekoyh
ds vkyksd esa gh fu;qfDr dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A
2- oxZ&3 ,oa 4 ds inksa ij LFkkuh; O;fDr;ksa dh fu;qfDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu ls lacfa /kr jkT; ljdkj ds ladYi ds vkyksd esa
dkjZokbZ dh tk;A
3- ftu Js.kh esa vHkh rd fu;qfDr ugha gqbZ gS] mudh p;u
izfØ;k dks rRdky izHkko ls jn~n djrs gq, iqu% dkjZokbZ
izkjaHk dh tk;A
4- ftu inksa ij fu;qfDr dh tk pqdh gS] muds laca/k esa fjEl
fu;ekoyh rFkk jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'kksa ds vkyksd esa iqu%
leh{kk djrs gq, dkjZokbZ dh tk;A
- 29 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
5- mDr vfu;ferrkvksa ds vkyksd esa lHkh nks"kh inkf/kdkfj;ksa
dks fpfUgr dj fu;ekuqlkj dkjZokbZ lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A
mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij dkjZokbZ lqfuf'pr dh tk; rFkk
d`r dkjZokbZ ls foHkkx dks voxr djk;k tk;A
53. In the light of said letter no. 153(11) dated 15.06.2020,
a meeting of the Selection Committee was convened on
10.07.2020, in which the selection committee realized that
the marks awarded on 09.01.2020 in the skill test require
moderation and revision in view of norms followed by Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission and Jharkhand Public
Service Commission in such matters.
54. To ensure fairness to the appearing candidates and
reduce the element of subjectivity, it was resolved to
moderate the marks in Skill Test awarded on 09.01.2020 and
limit it between 25% (5) and 75% (15) out of the total marks
of 20 in the skill test. For ready reference, the proceeding of
the meeting held on 10.07.2020, is quoted as under:
r`rh; oxhZ; p;u lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 10-07-2020 dh xbZ ftlesa
fuEukafdr lnL; mifLFkr gq, %&
01 MkW0 eatq xkM+h] Mhu] lg&izk/;kid ,oa foHkkxk/;{k] QkekZdksykWth
foHkkx] fjEl] jk¡ph &v/;{k
02 fpfdRlk v/kh{kd] fjEl] jk¡ph & lnL;
03 Jh tsBk ukx lnL; 'kklh ifj'kn~] fjEl] jk¡ph lg vuqlwfpr &
lnL; tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds izfrfuf/kA
04 rduhdh in ds ekeys esa lacaf/kr foHkkx ds lg&izk/;kid@ &
lnL; lgk;d izk/;kid] xSj rduhdh inksa ds fy, funs'kd }kjk
euksfurA
- 30 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
cSBd dk mn~ns'; r`rh; oxhZ; foKkiu 955¼A½ fnukad 08-03-2019 dks
es/kk lwph ij fopkj.k %&
cSBd dh dk;kZoyh%&
dk;kZoyh la0 1- LokLF; foHkkx ds i=kad 153 ¼11½ fnukad 15-06-
2020 ds vkyksd ,oa funs'kd ds ekSf[kd vkns'kkuqlkj n{krk
eqY;kadu dfefV ds }kjk fn;s x;s Skill Test ds vad dk iquvZoyksdu
djus ij fopkj.kA
fu.kZ; %n{krk eqY;kadu ds nkSjku fn, x;s vad dk iquvZoyksdu fnukad
10-07-2020 dks fd;k x;kA n{krk eqY;kadu lfefr }kjk ySc Vsdfuf'k;u
ds p;u ds ekeys esa fn, x;s vadksa ds voyksdu ftlesa fofnr gqvk fd
dqN izfrHkkxh dks iw.kkZad 20 esa ls U;wure 01 vkSj vf/kdre 18-5 vad
fn, x;s gsSaA
bl ckjs esa ;g rgdhdkr dh xbZ fd vU; Js'B laLFkkuksa ;Fkk
>kj[k.M yksd lsok vk;ksx] mÙkj izns'k yksd lsok vk;ksx] la?k yksd
lsok vk;ksx vkfn esa varohZ{kk esa U;wure ,oa vf/kdre dh D;k dksbZ
lhek gksrh gS \ nwjHkk'k ij izkIr izR;qÙkj esa irk pyk fd mÙkj izns'k
yksd lsok vk;ksx esa varohZ{kk esa vf/kdre 75% ,oa U;wure 25% vad
nsus dk izko/kku gS vkSj vU; vk;ksx ds varohZ{kk esa Hkh ;|fi U;wure
vf/kdre vad dh dksbZ lhek ugha gS ijUrq mu LFkkuksa ij Hkh ;g
[;ky j[kk tkrk gS fd U;wure&vf/kdre 25% ls 75% ds chp esa
gh jgsA
mijksDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa iquvZoyksdu ds le; ls ¼vFkkZr 20
vad esa ls 05 ls 15½ ds U;wure&vf/kdre vad dks vk/kkj ekurs
gq;s lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks iznÙk vad dh leh{kk dj ml gn rd mls
la'kksf/kr fd;k tk;sA rnuqlkj final list rS;kj fd;k tk;sA
dk;kZoyh la0 2- Jharkhand Para Medical Council ls ek¡xs x,
Registration dk lR;kiu~ vkosnu ij fopkj.kA
fu.kZ; %p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dk Jharkhand Para Medical Council
ls Registration dk lR;kiu~ ugha gks ik;k mu vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks p;u ls
ckgj fd;k x;kA
dk;kZoyh la0 3- vkosndksa dk vkoklh;] tkfr] vuqHko] izek.k&i= dh
iqu% tk¡p ds voyksdu ij fopkj.kA
- 31 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
fu.kZ; %ftu p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk vkoklh; izek.k&i= izLrqr ugha dj
ik;s mUgsa p;u ls ckgj fd;k x;k] tkfr] vuqHko] izek.k&i= dh tk¡p
iqu% dfefV ds }kjk djk;k tkus dk fu.kZ; loZ lEefr ls fy;k x;kA
dk;kZoyh la0 4-Jh Hkqou HkkLdj] ySc VsDfuf'k;u ds vH;fFkZrk ij
fopkjA
fu.kZ; %fnukad 04-01-2020 dks Jh Hkqou HkkLdj ds 'kS{kf.kd@vkoklh;
rFkk vU; vfHkys[kksa ds lR;kiu ds }kjk Jh HkkLdj }kjk jktsUnz
vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ds QkekZdkyksth foHkkx ds izk/;kid lg nLrkost
lR;kiu lfefr ds lnL;] MkW0 jktho dqekj] ds lkFk fd, x;s nqO;Zogkj
ds vkyksd esa loZ lEefr ls ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd Jh HkkLdj tSls
O;fDr dks laLFkku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA ftlds dkj.k
Hkqou HkkLdj dks U;wure 05 vad nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA vr% Hkqou
HkkLdj dks p;u ls ckgj j[kus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA MkW0 jktho dqekj
dh fVIi.kh dh izfr layXu gSA
55. In the light of the above-mentioned decision, the marks
of skill test awarded earlier were subjected to moderation and
revision by the Screening Committee, a comparing chart of
marks obtained earlier before moderation and after
moderation in the skill, has been annexed as SC/I to the
affidavit filed by the respondents-RIMS.
56. Accordingly, during pendency of the writ petition, final
list was published vide Memo No. 4046 dated 20.10.2020,
which the petitioner challenged by filing I.A. No. 5706 of
2020. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed vide
order dated 05.11.2020 and amended writ petition, as
directed, was filed accordingly.
57. During pendency of the writ petition, specific stand was
taken by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that two
- 32 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
different marks in the skill test have been shown by the
respondent-RIMS, in Annexure C of the counter-affidavit and
in the information supplied to the petitioner under Right to
Information Act. Therefore, direction passed upon the
respondents-RIMS to file reply vide order dated 29.07.2021.
"(I) What is their stand regarding marks shown in Annexure-
C to the counter-affidavit and marks shown in the information
supplied to the petitioner in reply to his application under
Right to Information Act?
(II) As to why not the final merit list of selected and appointed
candidates for the post of Lab. Technician be cancelled.
(III) Under what circumstances the corrigendum to the earlier
advertisement was issued by the respondent-RIMS and that
too without informing the participants/ candidates.
Respondent-RIMS is further directed to file reply to Annexure-
12 of the writ application and bring on record the entire
documents pertaining to appointment of Lab. Technician
including the enquiry report and other documents which are
relevant for proper adjudication of this case.
58. In pursuance thereto, affidavit has been filed by the
respondents-RIMS stating therein that the skill test was held
on 09.01.2020, the candidates were awarded marks ranging
from 01 to 18.5 out of total 20 marks, based upon that merit
list dated 27.01.2020 was published. However, several
complaints were made by the candidates concerned regarding
- 33 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
some irregularities in the selection process. Therefore, the
State got an enquiry conducted, who submitted its report and
directed the RIMS to take certain corrective measures with
regard to the alleged irregularities.
59. Accordingly, the Selection Committee of RIMS, in its
meeting dated 10.07.2020, has realized that the marks
awarded on 09.01.2020 require revision in view of norms in
such matters followed by Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission and Jharkhand Public Service Commission. To
ensure fairness to the appearing candidates and reduce the
element of subjectivity it was resolved to moderate the marks
in Skill Test awarded on 09.01.2020 and limit it between 25%
(5) and 75% (15) out of the total marks of 20 in the skill test.
Accordingly, the marks awarded earlier on 09.01.2020 were
moderated and revised. As a result of such moderation even
the marks of writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 were revised
from 02 to 05 and revised merit list dated 20.10.2020 was
published. In the light of aforesaid, averment has been made
that there was two merit-list and the first was scrapped for
the reasons aforesaid.
60. The learned Single Judge heard learned counsel for the
parties and allowed the writ petition vide order dated
09.01.2024, against which, the instant intra-court appeals
have been preferred.
- 34 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
61. The ground has been taken by the writ petitioner in the
writ petition that respondent-RIMS instead of conducting skill
test has taken interview, which is not permissible, and the
marks obtained therein has been added in the final merit list
though neither in the advertisement nor in the relevant
rules/regulation, it has been stated that marks obtained in
the skill test would be added for final merit list but the
respondent-RIMS added the marks of skill test, which was
taken in the form of interview, while preparing final merit list.
Therefore, the entire selection process vitiates on the ground
that „rules of game cannot be changed once the game is
started‟.
62. While on the other hand, the appellants herein have
taken the ground that once the writ petitioner participated in
the process of selection without any protest, and on being
declared unsuccessful it is not available for him to challenge
the same.
63. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and on the strength of aforesaid factual
aspect, is of the view that following issues are required to be
answered to adjudicate the lis:
"I. Whether the principle that „the rules of game
cannot be changed once the game is started‟ as the
ground has been taken on behalf of writ petitioner
- 35 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
before the writ court, can be said to be applicable
herein?
II. Whether it is available for the writ petitioner to
accept the part of the decision taken by the selection
committee, which suits him and criticize the other
part of the decision by the same selection committee
and while doing so will it not be contrary to the
principle that there cannot be approbate and
reprobate?
III. Whether it is justified on the part of the writ
petitioner that once he participated in the process of
selection without any demur, can he raise the same
after being declared unsuccessful?
IV. Whether the process of selection on its
conclusion can be allowed to subsist in view of
enquiry report of State, which is having the evasive
control, to judge the element of illegality/irregularity
in the process of selection?
64. Since, all the issues are inter-linked, as such they are
taken up together for its consideration
65. The question of „rules of games cannot be changed when
game is started‟ is no more res integra in view of judgment
passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the Case of Tej Prakash
Pathak. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors [in Civil Appeal
- 36 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
No. 2634/2013 with Civil Appeal No.2635/2013 and Civil
Appeal No.2636/2013, 2024 INSC 847, wherein law has
been laid down that recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and
ends with filling up of vacancies and further it has been held
that eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process
unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement,
which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if
such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. However, it has been
concluded that the recruiting bodies, subject to the extant
Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the
recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure
so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non-arbitrary
and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Further, conclusion has been arrived at that to that extant
Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting
body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However,
where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative
- 37 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
instructions may fill in the gaps. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment is quoted as under:
30. What is clear from above is that the object of any
process of selection for entry into a public service is to
ensure that a person most suitable for the post is selected.
What is suitable for one post may not be for the other.
Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the
employer to devise its method/ procedure to select a
candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the
overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution as also the Rules/ Statute governing
service and reservation. Thus, in our view, the appointing
authority/ recruiting authority/ competent authority, in
absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure
for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while
doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of
the recruitment process including written examination and
interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the
same should be stipulated before the commencement of the
advertisement inviting applications empower the
competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages
of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be
set any time before that stage is reached so that neither
the candidate nor the evaluator/ examiner/ interviewer is
taken by surprise. The decision in K. Manjusree (supra)
does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various
stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it
should not be set after the stage is over, in other words
after the game has already been played. This view is in
consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate
expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of
transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby
obviates mal practices in preparation of select list.
42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
terms:
- 38 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of
the advertisement calling for applications and ends with
filling up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment
process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the
advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules,
so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the
extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have
to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution
and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good
law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha
(supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select
List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to
be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal
with altogether different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may
devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment
process to its logical end provided the procedure so
adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary
and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However,
if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of
consideration in the select list"
66. Another position of law which is also require to refer
herein is that since the ground has been taken to turn
- 39 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
around after participating in the process of selection by the
writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 and thereafter challenged the
recruitment process.
67. There is no doubt that once the candidate has
participated in the process of selection and declared to be
unsuccessful, it is not available for such candidate to turn
around and question the selection process. Reference in this
regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of
Manish Kumar Shahi Vrs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC
576, wherein, at paragraph-16, it has been held as under:-
"16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar
Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2008)
4 PLJR 93] that after having taken part in the process of
selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks
have been earmarked for viva voce test, the appellant is
not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared in the merit
list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the
selection. The [appellant] invoked jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only
after he found that his name does not figure in the merit
list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the
appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the
selection and the High Court did not commit any error by
refusing to entertain the writ petition." [ See also: Madan
Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S)
712, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC
522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68, Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005
and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57].
- 40 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
68. The underlying objective of the aforesaid principle is to
prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration,
and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate,
having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting
a second chance.
69. However, the aforesaid principle will be not applicable in
a cases situation where the candidates allege mis-
construction of statutory rules and discriminating
consequences, the same cannot be condoned merely because
the candidate has taken part in it.
70. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta
Sahai Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2019) 20
SCC 17, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are
being referred as under:-
"Preliminary issues
15. Furthermore, before beginning analysis of the legal
issues involved, it is necessary to first address the
preliminary issue. The maintainability of the very challenge
by the appellant has been questioned on the ground that she
having partaken in the selection process cannot later
challenge it due to mere failure in selection. The counsel for
the respondents relied upon a catena of decisions of this
Court to substantiate his objection.
16. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a
candidate from challenging the selection process after having
failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of
judgments including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar
[Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 :
- 41 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , observing as follows: (SCC p.584,
para 16)
"16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar
Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 :
(2008) 4 PLJR 93] that after having taken part in the
process of selection knowing fully well that more than
19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the
appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or
process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had
appeared in the merit list, he would not have even
dreamed of challenging the selection. The [appellant]
invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India only after he found that his
name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly
disentitles him from questioning the selection and the
High Court did not commit any error by refusing to
entertain the writ petition." [ See also: Madan Lal v. State
of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712,
Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68, Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC - 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
1005 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC
515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57]. The underlying objective of
this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another
shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein
every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection,
challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance.
17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar
as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection
process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the
illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges
misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating
consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be
condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it.
The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in
any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not
have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of
- 42 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates
in the selection process.
18. The question of permissibility of giving weightage for
"work experience" in government hospitals is also not the
bone of contention in this case. Medicine being an applied
science cannot be mastered by mere academic knowledge.
Longer experience of a candidate adds to his knowledge and
expertise. Similarly, government hospitals differ from private
hospitals vastly for the former have unique infrastructural
constraints and deal with poor masses. Doctors in such non
private hospitals serve a public purpose by giving medical
treatment to swarms of patients, in return for a meagre
salary. Hence, when placing emphasis on the requirement of
work experience, there is no dispute on such recognition of
government hospitals and private hospitals as distinct
classes. Instead such recognition ensures that the doctors
recruited in not-so-rich States like Bihar have the requisite
exposure to challenges faced in those regions. 19. The
appellant has thus rightly not challenged the selection
procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the
respondents' interpretation of "work experience" as part of
merit determination. Since interpretation of a statute or rule
is the exclusive domain of courts, and given the scope of
judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellant's
challenge cannot be turned down at the threshold. However,
we are not commenting specifically on the merit of the
appellant's case, and our determination is alien to the
outcome of the selection process. It is possible post what is
held hereinafter that she be selected, or not. Statutory
Interpretation
20. It is a settled canon of statutory interpretation that as a
first step, the courts ought to interpret the text of the
provision and construct it literally. Provisions in a statute
must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its
words a common textual meaning. However, this tool of
interpretation can only be applied in cases where the text of
the enactment is susceptible to only one meaning. [Nathi Devi
v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271, para 13.]
- 43 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
Nevertheless, in a situation where there is ambiguity in the
meaning of the text, the courts must also give due regard to
the consequences of the interpretation taken.
21. It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the text in
a manner which eliminates any element of hardship,
inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly. [G.P. Singh on
Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn., 2016, pp.
145-170.] This principle of statutory construction has been
approved by this Court in Modern School v. Union of India
[Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583, para 62:
2 SCEC 577], by reiterating that a legislation must further its
objectives and not create any confusion or friction in the
system. If the ordinary meaning of the text of such law is non
conducive for the objects sought to be achieved, it must be
interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency.
22. There is no doubt that executive actions like
advertisements can neither expand nor restrict the scope or
object of laws. It is therefore necessary to consider the
interpretation of the phrase "government hospital" as
appearing in the Rules. Two interpretations have been put
forth before us which can be summarised as follows: (a.)
Only hospitals run by the Government of Bihar. (b). Hospitals
run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well
as any other non-private hospital within the territory of
Bihar. The former interpretation to the term, as accorded to it
by the respondents, forms a narrower class whereas the
latter interpretation used by the appellant is broader and
more inclusive."
71. However, we must differentiate from this principle
insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the
selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and
not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges
misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating
consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be
- 44 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
condoned merely because a candidate has part in it. The
constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any
manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have
locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the
provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in
the selection process.
72. It also requires to refer herein that there cannot be
approbate and reprobate. Reference in this regard be made to
the judgment rendered in the case of R. N. Gosain vs.
Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683. Paragraph-10 of the said
judgment is being reproduced as hereunder:
"10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and
reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of
election which postulates that no party can accept and
reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say
at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain
some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the
footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is
void for the purpose of securing some other advantage".
[See : Verschures Creameries Ltd. v. Hull and Netherlands
Steamship Co. Ltd. [(1921) 2 KB 608, 612 (CA)] , Scrutton,
L.J.] According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.,
Vol. 16, "after taking an advantage under an order (for
example for the payment of costs) a party may be
precluded from saying that it is invalid and asking to set it
aside". (para 1508)
73. In the aforesaid backdrop of settled position of law, this
Court is now proceeding to consider the issues as has been
formulated hereinabove.
- 45 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
74. It is evident from the factual aspect that as per Rule 4
(III) of Rule, 2015 as formulated by the State, the
appointment for para medical staffs was made by the
Selection Commission constituted by RIMS, in which total
100 marks of examination was decided to be held; out of
which 50 marks for oral/interview; educational qualification
30 and 20 marks for experience. Further, the roster
reservation as per State Government was made applicable.
Rule 11 of Rules, 2015 speaks that if any of the provisions is
not mentioned in the Rules, then the directives of Governing
Body of RIMS will be effective.
75. A five-member Technical Skill Screening Committee
under the chairmanship of Dean, RIMS was constituted vide
order dated 26.07.2019 by the Director, RIMS. The Director,
RIMS vide decision dated 22.07.2019, laid down the norms
and modalities to be followed for appointment on Class III
posts, wherein at Clause 2(ka), it has been averred that in the
meeting held on 20.07.2019, it has unanimously decided that
if application is received more than that of vacant posts then
in that situation a „Screening Test‟ will be held of the
concerned subject of 100 marks of multiple choice question,
weightage of which in the merit will be 50%.
76. Further, at clause 4(kha) it has been stated that since
in the medical field there is importance of experience as such
- 46 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
maximum 30 marks will be for experience. Further, at clause
4(ga), it has been decided that since interview has been
abolished by the Government of India, so far posts of Class III
and Class IV posts are concerned and since there is
importance of „accuracy of data‟ in medical science, as such
decision was taken to conduct „skill test‟ of 20 marks.
Thereby, the merit will be prepared of 50 marks for written;
30 marks for experience and 20 marks for skill test.
77. On the aforesaid backdrop, the appellants, writ
petitioner and other eligible candidates participated in the
selection process and final list of selected candidates for
appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician was
published vide letter dated 27.01.2020, in which, the name of
the writ petitioner does not find place, against which, the writ
petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 393 of
2020.
78. From perusal of documents available on record, it is
evident that decision to conduct screening test or provision of
screening test, was neither available in the recruitment rule
nor in the advertisement, rather, the decision to conduct the
screening test was taken by the selection committee of RIMS.
79. It is also admitted fact that both the writ petitioner-
respondent no. 1 and the appellants have participated in
screening test without any protest. On the basis marks
- 47 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
obtained in screening test along with the marks obtained in
written and experience, the appellants were selected for the
post in question whereas the writ petitioner having scored
less marks in screening test could not find his name in the
final select list. Criticizing the decision to have the skill test of
the selection process by the writ petitioner, according to our
considered view, is not acceptable reason being that if the
document/process is to be criticized, the same is to be
criticized in entirety and not in part, as is being done by the
writ petitioner.
80. The writ petitioner has challenged the part of the policy
decision for conducting skill test and addition of its mark in
final merit list, though he participated in the skill test
without raising any protest. The same is not acceptable in
view of the principle that there cannot be probate and
reprobate.
81. We have considered the factual aspect and found
therefrom that the writ petitioner participated in the process
of selection without any protest, as would appear from the
marks obtained by them in the tabular chart submitted by
the respondents-RIMS. But the writ petitioner did not
question the decision of the committee to have a skill test
rather he participated without any protest.
- 48 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
82. The final result published in which the writ petitioner
was found to be not successful and only thereafter the writ
petitioner challenged the decision of committee for
conducting screening test.
83. This Court, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, is of
the view, as has been held by Hon‟ble Apex Court, that once
the candidate participated in the process of selection, it is not
available for such candidate to turn around and challenge the
process as is being done by the petitioner.
84. However, exception to the said judgment is there as has
been referred hereinabove of the judgment rendered in the
case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors
(supra) but the factual aspect of the said case is quite
distinct from the present case.
85. Accordingly, issue nos. I to III are answered.
86. This Court has also perused the marks as obtained in
written, experience and in particular the marks obtained skill
test as depicted in the tabular chart(s) and it appears that in
two tabular charts appended with the paper book, the marks
obtained in the skill test either has been increased and
decreased of one or the other candidates.
87. The learned counsel for the respondents-RIMS has
submitted that the same is in consequence of principle of
- 49 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
moderation. Upon which, this Court has posed a question
that what was the occasion to take a decision for moderation.
88. Learned counsel for the respondents-RIMS has
submitted that since there was large gap of marks in the skill
tests ranging from 01 to 18.5 out of 20 and several
complaints were made in this regard and in pursuance
thereto, enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer by the
State Government, and accordingly enquiry report was
submitted by the enquiry officer and directives were given by
the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Government of Jharkhand.
89. Pursuant thereto, the Selection Committee of RIMS, in
its meeting dated 10.07.2020, has realized that the marks
awarded on 09.01.2020 require moderation and revision in
view of norms in such matters followed by Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission and Jharkhand Public Service
Commission.
90. To ensure fairness to the appearing candidates and
reduce the element of subjectivity it was resolved to moderate
the marks in Skill Test awarded on 09.01.2020 and limit it
between 25% (5) and 75% (15) out of the total marks of 20 in
the skill test.
91. Accordingly, the marks awarded earlier on 09.01.2020
were moderated and revised. As a result of such moderation
- 50 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
even the marks of writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 were
revised from 02 to 05 and revised merit list dated 20.10.2020
was published. In the light of aforesaid, averment has been
made that there was two merit-lists and the first was
scrapped for the reasons aforesaid.
92. This Court is of the view that the moderation and
scaling system can be adopted by the recruiting agency but it
depends upon the situation.
93. The moderation or scaling system can be adopted in
order to treat the candidates on equal footing. For example,
the principle which is being followed in selection process in
UPSC where the scaling process is being followed that is for
the purpose of maintaining the parity in marks in different
subjects, since there is chance of obtaining higher marks in
comparison to other subjects but that is not available so far
present case is concerned since herein the skill test has been
conducted for a particular post of „Laboratory Technician‟ for
performing a particular task.
94. It needs to refer herein that Scaling is a statistical
method used to adjust raw scores from different subjects to a
common scale. This ensures fairness when candidates are
tested in various subjects, allowing for comparison across
different papers. For example, if one subject is considered
harder and naturally yields lower scores, scaling
- 51 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
compensates by adjusting the scores to reflect comparable
performance levels across subjects. Other hand
Moderation involves adjusting scores to account for variations
in examiner strictness or leniency. It ensures that the final
results are consistent and fair, especially when multiple
examiners grade different parts of the exam. Moderation
typically involves reviewing a sample of answer sheets to
standardize marking practices.
95. Like UPSC, most examining authorities like state
commissions appear to take the view that moderation is the
appropriate method to bring about uniformity in valuation
where several examiners manually evaluate answer-scripts of
descriptive/conventional type question papers in regard to
same subject; and that scaling should be resorted to only
where a common merit list has to be prepared in regard to
candidates who have taken examination in different subjects,
in pursuance to an option given to them. Reference in this
regard be made to Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service
Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex
Court has observed which reads as under:
23. When a large number of candidates appear for an
examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and
consistency in valuation of the answer-scripts. Where
the number of candidates taking the examination are
limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-
setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be
assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation.
- 52 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
But where a large number of candidates take the
examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-
scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore,
becomes necessary to distribute the answer-scripts
among several examiners for valuation with the paper-
setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head
Examiner. When more than one examiners evaluate the
answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of
the respective examiner will creep into the marks
awarded by him to the answer-scripts allotted to him for
valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick
to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even
when experienced examiners receive equal batches of
answer-scripts, there is difference in average marks and
the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit
of individual candidates. This apart, there is "hawk-
dove" effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation
and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are
strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be
moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even
among those who are liberal or those who are strict,
there may be variance in the degree of strictness or
liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is
given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of
different marks being assigned. If a very well-written
answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre
answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre
answer-script may be awarded more marks than the
excellent answer-script. In other words, there is
"reduced valuation" by a strict examiner and "enhanced
valuation" by a liberal examiner. This is known as
"examiner variability" or "hawk-dove effect". Therefore,
there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure
uniformity inter se the examiners so that the effect of
"examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability" is
minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner
subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The
classic method of moderation is as follows:
- 53 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the
Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from
amongst senior academicians/scholars/senior civil
servants/judges. Where the case is of a large number of
candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and
each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for
valuation.
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than
one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head
Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the
examination. They discuss thoroughly the question
paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be
given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry
out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions.
The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is
reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in
assigning marks are further discussed. After such
discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the
norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the
examiners are required to complete the valuation of
answer-scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about
uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite
of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate
from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is
overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality
or erraticism or carelessness during the course of
valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps
become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners,
the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey
of the corrected answer-scripts to verify whether the
norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually
been followed by the examiners. The process of random
sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level
answer-scripts and some answer books selected at
random from the batches of answer-scripts valued by
each examiner. The top level answer books of each
examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who
- 54 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
carries out such corrections or alterations in the award
of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to
achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary
certain statistics like distribution of candidates in
various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks,
the highest and lowest award of marks, etc. may also
be prepared in respect of the valuation of each
examiner.)
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards
adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may
confirm the award of marks without any change if the
examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggests
upward or downward moderation, the quantum of
moderation varying according to the degree of liberality
or strictness in marking. In regard to the top level
answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his
award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the
other answer books below the top level, to achieve
maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners,
the awards are moderated as per the recommendations
made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been
erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it
is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the
answer-scripts valued by such examiner are revalued
either by the Head Examiner or any other examiner who
is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and
the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one
Head Examiner to assess the work of all the examiners.
In such a situation, one more level of examiners is
introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will
be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples
as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is
checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of "moderation" would bring in
considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be
noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in
- 55 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
valuation is impossible to achieve where there are
several examiners and the effort is only to achieve
maximum uniformity.
96. It requires to refer herein that the method of awarding of
moderation marks was found to be illegal by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union
of India and others AIR 1985 SC 1351 wherein while
considering the fixation of such minimum marks for filling
the posts in the Delhi Judicial services in the year 1984, the
Apex Court at paragraph 13 has observed that since the High
Court has no power of moderation under the Rules as such
the list prepared by the High Court after adding the
moderation marks is liable to be struck down, for ready
reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"In a competitive examination of this nature the
aggregate of the marks obtained in the written papers
and at the viva voce test should be the basis for
selection. On reading R.16 of the Rules which merely
lays down that after the written test the High Court
shall arrange the names in order of merit and these
names shall be sent to the Selection Committee, we are
of the view that the High Court has no power to include
the names of candidates who had not initially secured
the minimum qualifying marks by resorting to the devise
of moderation, particularly when there was no complaint
either about the question papers or about the mode of
valuation. Exercise of such power of moderation is likely
to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection
to public appointments which is intended to be fair and
impartial. It may also result in the violation of the
- 56 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The
cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard
cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad
law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict
construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court
has no such power under the Rules. We are of the
opinion that the list prepared by the High Court after
adding the moderation marks is liable to be struck
down. The first contention urged on behalf of the
petitioners has, therefore, to be upheld. We, however,
make it clear that the error committed by the High Court
in this case following its past practice is a bona fide one
and is not prompted by any sinister
consideration."(emphasis supplied by us)
97. Herein, there is no reference as to why the
moderation/revision principle has been adopted by
RIMS/Exam Governing Body, even though as per the
admitted case all the candidates are having the equal
qualification with minimum desired experience then where is
the question of moderation rather the marks should have
been allotted strictly on the basis of allotment of marks based
upon the skill test, which has been assessed by the
Board/Committee in course of assessing the skill.
98. Accordingly, the issue no. IV is decided.
99. After answering these issues, as above, this Court has
gone through the judgment passed by learned Single Judge
and found therefrom that the reference made at paragraph 10
onwards particularly 11 wherein finding has been recorded
that there is no provision for Skill Test either in the
- 57 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
advertisement or in the Rules and on the basis of marks
obtained in the skill test as well as in written test and
experience the final merit list was prepared.
100. We are not disputing the aforesaid fact and it has rightly
been observed by learned Single Judge that there is no
provision for Skill Test either in the advertisement but while
considering the aforesaid aspect, the learned Single Judge
ought to have taken into consideration the fact that there was
no reference to have the screening test in the advertisement
or in the rule but there is no consideration of the aforesaid
aspect of the matter.
101. The question of moderation of marks has also been
taken as a ground, which according to learned Single Judge
has been found to be not taken approval by the Governing
Body or the State. But the aforesaid finding cannot be
approved reason being that once the advertisement has been
notified and selection committee has been formulated there is
no provision under the RIMS Act, 2002 or Regulation, 2014
that the recruitment process is to be approved either by the
Governing Body or the State. The aforesaid aspect of the
matter will be clear from the reference of some of the
provisions of the RIMS Act, 2002 and Regulation, 2014
wherein it has been provided that the State will have evasive
- 58 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
control over the RIMS and having no control over the
administration of RIMS on day to day affairs.
102. So far as the approval of the Governing Body is
concerned, there is also no provision to that effect either in
the Rules, 2002 or Regulations, 2014 since the statute
confers power upon the Governing Body only to formulate
policy decision in absence of rule in the recruitment rules.
103. But there is no consideration either of Rules, 2002 or
Regulation, 2014, the approval of any decision by the
appointing authority is to be considered on the basis of the
conferment of power under the statute and if the statute does
not contain any provision by conferring the power then there
cannot be any approval either of the Governing Body or the
State, but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into
consideration.
104. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the enquiry report
of the Additional Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of
Jharkhand giving the finding at paragraph 12 of the
impugned judgment that after going through the affidavit
filed by the Health Secretary, it appears that the illegalities
cannot be routed out. In view of affidavit filed by the Health
secretary and the Enquiry Report brought on record, it
smacks of favouritism and nepotism, then the big question
arises - why the entire selection process be not cancelled.
- 59 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
105. Therefore, the question arises that if the entire selection
of process suffers from unfairness, and further during
selection procedure proper procedure has not been followed
then what would be the course of decision.
106. It cannot be disputed that in making the public
employment the element of fairness and transparency is
paramount so as to achieve the object and intent of Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointing authority
while dealing with the issue of public employment has to be
more cautious in filling the vacancy of public employment or
even employment in the public sector, so as to have the trust
of the people at large.
107. It appears from the impugned judgment and the based
upon the affidavit filed on behalf of State that the issue of
illegalities said to be committed in the selection process has
thoroughly been enquired which has been communicated to
the respondents-RIMS vide letter dated 15.06.2020, stating
that "tk¡p lfefr }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd fjEl esa foKkiu la0 955 ¼,½
,oa ¼ch½ }kjk r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ oxhZ; inksa ij dh xbZ fu;qfDr esa leqfpr izfØ;kvksa
dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa dk Hkh
mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA". From this, it is apparent that there was
violation of rules while making public employment.
108. The question, therefore, is that if the competent
authority of the State government is having its opinion of
- 60 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
commission of unfairness, and non-adherence of the proper
procedure then whether the appointment so made can be
allowed to subsist. The answer of this question would be in
„negative‟ for the reason that if the element of arbitrariness
and non-adherence of proper procedure is there, as found by
the enquiry officer, then allowing to subsist such
appointment will certainly hit Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
109. If the learned Single Judge has considered the enquiry
report which according to our considered view cannot be said
to suffer from an error on the principle that the fairness and
transparency is paramount bearing in the matter of public
employment and based upon this, if the learned Single Judge
has come to the conclusive finding that there is element of
unfairness, nepotism and favourtism then entire selection
process ought to have been cancelled but instead of doing so
the learned Single Judge has sustained the selection process,
however, with direction to issue fresh appointment letters
considering the fresh merit list prepared on the basis of
written marks and experience. The aforesaid part of the
direction cannot be approved reason being that if the entire
selection process is found to suffer from an error and
illegality has been carried out as per the enquiry report then
the process of recruitment which also includes the entire
- 61 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
process either of screening test, as the case herein, is
required to be quashed and set aside.
110. If the rule does not provide to have the screening test or
the written marks obtained in the said screening test then
such performance based upon the written examination also
cannot be said to stand rather the same will be said to be
contrary to the recruitment rule.
111. We are of the view that if the rules of recruitment,
as formulated the appointing authority, is to strictly go
by the statutory provision without deviating from the
same.
112. The law is well settled that if any statutory provision is
there, the same is to be complied with in its strict sense and
the action is to be taken based upon the statutory provision
without any deviation, reference in this regard made to
Judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Singhara Singh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 358, wherein it
has been held at paragraph 8 as under:
"....its result is that if a statute has conferred a
power to do an act and has laid down the method in
which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily
prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner
than that which has been prescribed. The principle
behind the rule is that if this were not so, the
statutory provision might as well not have been
enacted...."
- 62 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
113. Reference has also made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar
Council of Kerala, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422, wherein
it has been at paragraphs 31 & 32 as under:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if
the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed
under any statute, the act must be done in that
manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable
to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed
by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who
stated as under:
"[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not
at all."
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court
in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again
in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases
were considered by a three-judge bench of this Court
in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid
down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This
rule has since been applied to the exercise of
jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as
a statutory principle of administrative law.
114. Reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court also needs to be made in the case of Commissioner
of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala,
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633, wherein it has been held
at paragraph 27 as under:
"..... it is a normal rule of consideration that when a
statute vests certain power in an authority to be
exercised in a particular manner then the said
- 63 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
authority has to exercise it only in the manner
provided in the statute itself...."
115. This Court in view of the aforesaid is of the view that
direction as contained in paragraph 19 of the impugned
judgment to the effect "Let fresh appointment be made on the
post of Laboratory Technician considering the fresh merit list
prepared on the basis of written marks and experience. Let the
entire exercise be concluded within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order."
also needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the
direction, as given at paragraph 19 of the impugned
judgment requires interference and as such the same is
quashed and set aside.
116. The respondent-RIMS is directed to conduct fresh
selection process strictly in accordance with the recruitment
rules and complete the entire exercise within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
117. Accordingly, issue no. IV is answered and decided
against both the parties.
118. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to mention herein
the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties
that as of now some of the appointees [the appellants and
respondents] have crossed the maximum age for participation
in the process of selection, as such, after serving for a long
period of more than five years, if any adverse order would be
- 64 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
passed, they would render jobless and would lost their future
prospect also.
119. This Court, considering the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and discussions made
hereinabove, is of the view that since this Court has directed
for fresh selection and both the parties i.e., the appellants
and the private respondent(s) have participated in the process
of selection and as has been submitted on behalf of parties
that they have crossed the maximum age limit as of now, as
such by way of one time measure, the respondents-
authorities are directed to extend the benefit of age relaxation
to the parties [appellants and private respondent(s)] only so
that they may participate in the process of selection.
120. Before parting with the order, it needs to refer herein
that since the appellants are working as a laboratory
technician which is the vital man power resource in the
institute like RIMS, hence, this Court is of the view that they
will continue in the service till the appointment to the post in
question is made afresh, as directed hereinabove i.e., within a
period of three months making it clear that there will no
extension of service beyond the period of three months.
121. It is made clear that if in case, the selection process is
not completed within a period of three months then the
continuation of the appellants in service and the similarly
- 65 -
2025:JHHC:26738-DB
situated person/employee will be extended with the leave of
the Court for furtherance after the period of three months.
122. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
instant intra-court appeals stand disposed of.
123. The stay granted, by this Court vide order dated 22nd
February, 2024, stands vacated.
124. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/
A.F.R.
- 66 -
