- (1.) In the year 1994 the State initiated a recruitment process for the post of Homoeopathic Compounder-cum-Dresser. Accordingly, a regular recruitment process was had vide notification dated January 28, 1994 issued by the State through Health and Family Welfare Department. Two interview boards were constituted for the said purpose. Accordingly, interview was held and the Director of Homoeopathy published a panel. However, the State decided not to implement the said panel in view of illegality and irregularity being complained and found justification. The Joint Secretary, Health Department submitted a report with regard to the illegality committed in the process of selection. The successful candidates approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated November 26, 1996 asked the Police Authority to investigate into the complaint. The Police submitted Enquiry Report dated February 20, 1997 before the Tribunal that found justification in support of the illegality and/or irregularity committed during the selection process. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed holding a fresh selection process through Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as P.S.C.) that was approved by the Division Bench of this Court. The order of the Division Bench dated April 7, 1998 appearing at pages 54-60 would show that the Division Bench observed that it was a fit and proper case for the State to conduct the fresh selection through P.S.C. By a subsequent order dated June 21, 2000 appearing at page 61 the Division Bench granted liberty to the P.S.C. to follow the rules and procedure with such modification as may be found suitable to implement the judgment and order dated April 7, 1998. Accordingly, P.S.C. conducted the selection process and prepared a panel. The P.S.C. sent the panel to the State on November 24, 2000 for appropriate action on the same. The State however, changed their policy and decided not to fill up the post vide order dated May 5, 2003. Such policy decision of the State became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in O.A. No.100 of 2004 and 731 of 2005. The Tribunal disposed of the said applications vide judgment and order dated February 19, 2008. The Tribunal held that the State was not entitled to change their stand and, as such, directed implementation of the panel by giving appropriate appointment to the selected candidates.
(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied to the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the State filed application for review. The Tribunal dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated August 19, 2008 finding it devoid of any merit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated February 19, 2008, State filed an application before this Court. The Division Bench vide Judgment and order dated May 11, 2009 dismissed the said application by observing that since the original order merged in the order of review the challenge to the original order did not subsist.
(3.) In view of the order of the Division Bench the State approached us by filing a composite application challenging the order dated February 19, 2008 so merged in the judgment and order dated August 19, 2008 being W.P.S.T. 568 of 2009. We heard the said application on August 12, 2011 and August 23, 2011 when the hearing was concluded and judgment was reserved.;