Sadhusharan Prasad And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6260 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Sadhusharan Prasad Son Of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Resident Of Village : - Sugaon, Post : - Sugaon, District : - Jehanabad

2. Sri Kant Ram Son Of Late Rishimuni Ram Resident Of Village : - Mahua Bigha, Post : - Sarata, P.S: - Paras Bigha, District : - Jehanabad

3. Heera Lal Kumar Son Of Chanda Sao Resident Of Village : - Aor, Post : - Neuri, P.S. : - Belaganj, District : - Gaya

4. Vijay Kumar Son Of Sri Babuchand Ram Resident Of Village And Post - Sarishtabad, Police Station - Ghoshi, District : - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Health Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Gaya

3. The District Magistrate, Gaya District: - Gaya

4. The District Malaria Officer, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar prasad Gupta For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GP 23 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-04-2016 Petitioners have filed writ application for a direction for inclusion of their name for appointment on a class IV post since they claim themselves to be a seasonal DDT Sprayer working in the District Malaria Office, Gaya.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, a stand has been taken that the petitioners are basically working as voluntary health workers since the year 2006 and their case cannot be equated with those working since the year 1991. It is disputed that even the nature of work, which has been asserted in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6260 of 2014 dt.26-04-2016 2/2 writ application, are similar or identical to DDT Sprayers. If an exercise has been done with regard to creation of a panel with regard to such workers, who have been working since 1991, the effort on the part of these petitioners is to somehow obtain an order and direction from this Court for consideration for inclusion when the facts with regard to engagement and the period of work are totally different, no such direction and order can be issued. Writ application is, therefore, dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 27.4.2016 Transmission Date