Patna High Court
Uday Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8869 of 2020
======================================================
1. Uday Kumar, (Male), aged about 34 years, Son of Devendra Prasad Singh,
Resident of Village Mehta Colony, Malighat, Post Office-Main Post Office,
Police Station-Mithanoura, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
2. Ashok Kumar (Male), aged about 42 years, Son of Bhogendra Ram,
Resident of Village-Narauli Sen, Post Office-Binda, Police Station-
Mushahri, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
3. Md. Hasnain Ahmad (Male), aged about 34 years, Son of Md. Noor Hasan
Khan, Resident of Purab Sarai, Azad Colony, Munger, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Department of Health and Family Welfare, through Principal Secretary,
Bihar. Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Bihar Technical Service Commission through its Secretary, 19,
Hardinge Road, Patna.
6. The Bihar Technical Service Commission through its Secretary, 19,
Hardinge Road, Patna.
7. The Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine, K-52, Lanuman
Nagar, Post Office-Lohia Nagar, Patna-20 through its Registrar.
8. The Registrar, Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine, K-52,
Hanuman Nagar, Post Office-Lohia Nagar, Patna-20.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar with
Mr. Amrit Anunay, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Parasmani, AC to GP 4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.8869 of 2020 dt.28-01-2021
Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel along
with Mr. Amrit Anunay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Sanjay Parasmani, learned AC to GP 4 for the State.
2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the
following reliefs:
"(I) For commanding the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar
and the Department of Health and Family welfare,
Bihar, Patna for giving appropriate directions to the
Bihar Technical Service Commission Patna for
modification in Advertisement no. 04/2020 as well
as 05/2020 dated 28.09.2020 issued under the
signature of Secretary, Bihar Technical Service
Commission wherein the eligibility qualification
mentioned in para 2 is confined to only B.A.M.S.
degree granted by a recognised University included
in the schedule of the Central Council of Indian
Medicine, New Delhi and other equivalent
qualification like G.A.M.S. has either been
deliberately or inadvertenly not mentioned.
(ii) For commanding the respondent Bihar
Technical Service Commission, Patna to accordingly
issue modification/corrigendum in the
Advertisement dated 28.09.2020 relating to
Advertisement no 04/2020 to 09/2020.
(iii) For commanding the respondents to
permit/allow the holders of G.A.M.S. degree granted
by Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani
Medicine, Patna to appear and participate in the
selection process initiated through advertisement no
04/2020 to 09/2020 dated 28.09.2020.
(iv) For holding that G.A.M.S. degree
granted by Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and
Unani Medicine, Patna a body created under the
Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems
of Medicines Act, 1951 is equivalent to the degree
of B.A.M.S. and is a valid degree in terms of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 728 (Bihar State Council of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8869 of 2020 dt.28-01-2021
Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine vs the State of Bihar
& Others).
(V) For holding that the petitioners
holding the degree of G.A.M.S. is eligible and
entitled to participate in the selection process of
appointment to the post of Ayush medical officer and
physician (Ayurvedie).
(VI) For any other relief/reliefs to which
the petitioners may be found entitled to."
3. The matter has been taken up out of turn in view of
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
application be disposed off with liberty to file representation
before the respondent no. 1, who be directed to be dispose it off
within a fixed time period.
4. Learned counsel for the State does not object.
5. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off
with liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation
before the respondent no. 1. If the same is done within six weeks
from today, the respondent no. 1 shall look into the matter and pass
a reasoned order thereupon within six weeks from the date of
filing of the representation.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR
U
T
