PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to issue appointment letter to him against the vacant and appropriate post on the analogy of similarly situated persons. It is alleged that petitioner was appointed vide letter No. 1 dated 13 th March, 1985 as Family Welfare Worker in Primary Health Centre, Kasimar, District -Giridih. Vide Memo. No. 3241 dated 01.12.1986 he was appointed to the post of Family Welfare Worker in the Pay -Scale of Rs. 535 -765/ -. It is further stated that he has performed the duties regularly and continuously as per the letter No. 464 dated 02 nd of October, 1989, of the Medical Officer -In -charge of Kasimar Hospital. Petitioner, however, disengaged from service vide memo No. 2516 dated 16 th of August, 1988. A writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1065 of 1992 was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 30 th of March, 1992 with the following directions: This application is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner fulfil the criteria for appointment. His case may be considered together with all eligible candidates in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT is further stated that after the aforesaid judgment, petitioner was asked to appear before the Civil Surgeon on 06 th of October, 1989 vide his Memo. No. 37 Dated 27 th of September, 1999 with relevant documents. However, case of the petitioner has not been considered. It is also stated that some of the persons filed S.LP. (C) No. 9102 -9107 of 1990 before the Honble Supreme Court of India and on the basis of the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court one person, namely, Satendra Narayan Singh has been appointed vide Office order dated 23 rd December, 2000 and 3 more persons were later appointed vide Office memo. No. 518 dated 27 th of April, 2003. Petitioner, accordingly, has filed this petition seeking a direction for his appointment on the analogy of those persons and in view of the directions of this Court. Respondent -State in the counter affidavit has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners appointment was illegally made by the then Civil Surgeon - cum -Chief Medical Officer, Dr. B.C. Kumar. A five member Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih was constituted to enquire all the appointments and has found that all those appointments were illegal. As far the appointment of other persons except the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that some of the persons filed Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court of India and an interim order was passed on 09 th of January, 1992, issuing a direction for consideration of the petitioner without being rooted through the Executive Engineer. Subsequently, the Contempt Petition No. 67 -71 of 2003 was filed, whereunder notice was issued and in view of the above circumstances, vide letter No. 306 dated 26th of April, 2003, three persons were appointed. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed without adopting any procedure in consonance with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Neither applications were invited nor all the eligible candidates were considered for appointment against the available vacancies. The engagement of the petitioner was later revoked and an Enquiry Committee was constituted to examine the appointment. Enquiry Committee reported that all the appointments were illegal. Four persons named in the writ petition, were appointed in view of the direction for consideration issued by the Honble Supreme Court of India. Any appointment made consequent upon some direction of the Court that too in the Contempt petition, cannot be made a basis for granting relief to the petitioner when admittedly appointment of the petitioner itself was illegal. Even when this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 30 th of March, 1992, a direction was issued to consider the petitioner alongwith all other eligible candidates in accordance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby that the recruitment procedure in consonance with the mandate of Article 16 was to be followed. No such procedure has been followed. Petitioner again claimed parity with those who were appointed pursuant to some direction of the apex Court. The concept of Article 14 of equality is a positive concept and no direction can be issued, whereby illegality is perpetuated.
(3.) I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;