High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 10 PAT CK 0014

Dr. Dineshwar Prasad and Others vs Dr. Md. Ali Hassan and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 8 October 2002 · Citation: (2003) 1 PLJR 218

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 117/85

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 287 words
1.

On the matter being called, no one has appeared on either side whether for the Appellants or the Respondents.

2.

This is a very old matter. The advertisement in question which was intended to be challenged by the writ petition is of 1983, almost 20 years ago. The writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 155 and 2200 of 1985 carried a decision dated 6th August, 1985. This Court cannot help noticing that decision has been rendered by one of the distinguished Judges, the Hon''ble Mr. Justice L.M. Sharma, and yet later to become the Chief Justice of India. This decision is the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal. This appeal itself has been pending consideration for 17 years.

3.

Of whatever may be the issue between allocation for filling the posts in the Unani Medical Service or Ayurvedic Medical Service, the learned Judge, as he then was, did not quash the notification of 1983. In paragraph 9 the operative portion on the writ petition is that the advertisement, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, will be read for the purpose of filling up only 11 posts in the Unani Medical Service and 40 posts in the Ayurvedic Medical Service. Accordingly, the Bihar Public Service Commission was directed to send their recommendations with respect to the ''ad hoc appointees as requested by the State Government in Annexure-6 to the writ petition read with Rule 10 of the Bihar State Health Services (Basic Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1984.

4.

Since the action was being directed on the advertisement of 1983, it will not be appropriate for this Court to unsettle the decision rendered on the writ petition which this Court certifies as correct.

5.

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.