S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) As common question is involved in all these writ petitions, they have been taken up together and are decided by this common order.
(2.) Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for appointment as per the final result published by Memo No. 1619/RIMS, Ranchi dated 07.03.2017, issued by the Director, RIMS. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post which are not occupied by the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015.
(3.) The fact of the case, as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that an Advertisement No. 8576, dated 09.07.2016 was published by RIMS, Ranchi inviting applications with complete Biodata for filling up the posts of Tutor in different Department of RIMS. The petitioners applied for the post of Teachers in respective disciplines. Thereafter, interview letters were issued to them and after being found successful in all respects, final result was published on 07.03.2016. However, it has been mentioned in the result that the appointment letter to the selected candidates in different disciplines like Anatomy, Physiology, Bio-chemistry, Micro-Biology and Pharmacology will be issued after outcome of W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 filed by Dr. Rekha Sharma and others. Since appointment letters were not issued to the selected candidates, an Intervention Application was filed by Dr. Anita Kumari and Dr. Manju Boipai in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015, which was allowed and thereafter, W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 was also finally disposed of by judgment dated 06.12.2017. It was clearly held in the said W.P.(S) no. 2274 of 2015 that the interveners therein had been selected as per the procedures laid down in the advertisement and no illegality or infirmity was pointed out by anyone whatsoever in their appointments and as such, the respondents were duty bound to appoint the interveners if they fulfil other conditions.;