Kishore Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6217 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Kishore Prasad Son Of Bharat Sah Resident Of Village- P.O- Basdila Bazar, P.S And District- Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary Bihar At Patna

2. Principal Secretary, Health Services Deptt. Bihar, Patna.

3. The Health Commissioner- Cum- Secretary, Department Of Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare Bihar At Patna.

4. The Director In- Chief, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, At Patna.

5. The Chief Maleriya Officer, Bihar At Patna.

6. The Deputy Regional Director, Health Services, Saran At Chapra.

7. The Collector, Gopalganj At Gopalganj.

8. The Civil Surgeon- Cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj, At Gopalganj.

9. The District Malariya Officer, Gopalganj, At Gopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC-11 Ashok Kumar Mr. Amresh, AC to SC-11 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner's grievance is that the committee, headed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj has taken an erroneous decision, not to include or empanel names of persons, who have worked as seasonal DDT sprayers. It is de hors the various decisions taken by the High Court in this regard for such consideration. It is no longer a matter of debate that even seasonal DDT Sprayers are required to be considered for regularization and for which a panel has to be prepared and their names included for

Patna High Court CWJC No.6217 of 2014 dt.22-06-2016 2/2 consideration at the district level. Whether they are required to be appointed by Malaria Department and only against vacancies available etc. etc., are issues, which will arise subsequently. But the problem created in the present case is that the committee took the decision on 04.05.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, excludes the petitioner and such kinds from consideration in empanelment, which in the opinion of the Court is not sustainable. The writ application is allowed.

Direction is issued upon the District Magistrate, Gopalganj that empanelment of the petitioner would be required to be made, provided there are sufficiency of evidence of his engagement and working etc. The ultimate appointment or regularization will be considered in accordance with law and that stage will only arise after the petitioner is empanelled in the very first place. The only decision will be taken preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.06.2016 Transmission Date