Justice Rajiv Roy disposes of cases related illegal private hospitals in Bihar

In Rohit Kumar Singh @ Rohit Kumar Rocky vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court disposed the case along with Bindeshwar Sah vs. State of Bihar (2025) on May 1, 2026. Earlier, Justice Roy had passed a 10-page long order dated January 15, 2026 wherein, it was recorded that the petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025 instituted under Sections 319(2), 318(1), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 125(a), 125 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on March 21, 2025 by the informant, Dr. Rabindra Kumar. As per the prosecution story, during surprise inspection relating to illegal running of Clinic/Hospital that: (i) research child care unit;  (ii) new jiwan health care; (iii) maa shobha hospital; (iv) leafty life emergency hospital in Jandaha Block were running without any proper approval of the State Government, were sealed and the officials named as accused. The case was filed on December 10, 2025 and registered on December 22, 2025.

 

Prior to this in his order dated April, 3, 2026 had recorded that the counsel for the petitioners and GP-2 Prashant Pratap, Jitendra Kumar Singh prayed for and were allowed four weeks’ time to file affidavit on behalf of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and had ordered that this case be listed on May 1, 2026.

 

The order dated May 1, 2026 by Justice Roy recorded that "8. In similar situate case, Cr. Misc. no. 90533 of 2025 (Bindeshwar Sah vs. State), response of Health Department, Bihar as also the Civil Surgeon, Vaishali have been sought. 9. Call for legible xerox/carbon copy of the case diary, the criminal antecedent report of the petitioner and the supervision report, if any, in the present case from the court of learned A.C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025.List this case on 13.03.2026 as "Tied Up Matter" alongwith Cr. Misc. No. 90533 of 2025 (Bindeshwar Sah vs. the State of Bihar)  11. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection Jandaha P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur." According to the affidavit of the Civil Surgeon, the clinic operated in Rajapakar, Vaishali was neither registered nor were qualified doctors present there. The administration has registered a case number imposing a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The High Court directed the Health Department to file the progress report.

 

Justice Roy recollected that in the Dr. Dilip Kumar @ Hari Shankar Pandit & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 43257 of 2025) wherein a lady had died at a private clinic in Piro (Bhojpur), reports were called for from the Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur as also the Health Department, Bihar, Patna. In his order dated November 24, 2025 referred to his order dated November 7, 2025. The latter recorded paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit which read as follows: “6. That a total of 123 private hospitals operating within the district of Bhojpur were inspected by the duly constituted investigation team. During the said inspection, it was found that 81 hospitals were not functioning as per prescribed medical and statutory standards and accordingly, were declared as illegal hospital with immediate effect. 7. That the aforesaid details of the inspection, including the list of illegal hospitals, have been uploaded on the official website Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur in strict compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. A copy of Letter No. 2883 dated 31.07.2025 & Letter No. 2889 dated 01.08.2025 along with the enclosed list of such hospitals has also been placed on record. 8. That in furtherance of paragraph
18(i) of the order dated 25.07.2025, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur vide Letter No. 3118 dated 17.08.2025, addressed to the District Information and Public Relations Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah, requested the uploading of the list of illegal private hospitals, nursing homes, Bhojpur district on the official NIC website of the district.” 

 

Notably, the High Court was of the opinion that the Health Department of Bihar has taken strenuous job and expects that they will take the matter to its logical conclusion.The case was filed on June 16, 2025 and registered on June 26, 2025. 

 

Pursuant thereto, on August 22, 2025, the High  Court in the Dr. Dilip Kumar (supra) case, recorded: "Pursuant to the last order, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur is present in the Court and a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. The report is an eye opener for the District Administration as also the Health Department, Bihar as during the inspection, 81 Nursing Homes were found to be functioning illegally." He observed:"4. Clearly, the innocent citizen of Bhojpur district have been left to suffer at the hands of the illegal Nursing Homes with the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur as also the different other wings of the said district having the solemn duty to inspect and take necessary steps clearly looking the other way. The Health Department, Bihar also has to answer as to why reports are not sought for from the Districts randomly in this regard so that appropriate steps are taken in the matter. 5. Time has come for them to constitute a State level team under the leadership of a Senior Officer to be  deputed by the Departmental head who shall be visiting one of the district every fortnight alongwith a  dedicated team who shall have the power to inspect such Nursing Homes and directly report to the Department. 6. They shall also be inspecting the different Hospitals and Primary Health Centres situated in the particular district to get first hand knowledge about its functioning and suggest remedial measure so that they are strengthened accordingly to cater to the medical needs of the citizen. If the Hospitals/Primary Health Centres are fully equipped, the patients will certainly not like to go to the Nursing Homes....11. So far as the pathological labs are concerned, the concluding annexure clearly show that formality has been done by providing chart of 46 such labs but whether they are functioning legally/illegally and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State government or not and if not, the steps that has been taken has not been brought on record by the Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur. 12. Regarding the guidelines sought for by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur from the Health Department, Bihar, Patna is concerned, Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned GP-2 submits that steps are being taken to see to it that the said menace is controlled in the entire State of Bihar and for this, a request letter has been received for granting three week's time to file the reply of the Health Department, Bihar. The submission is that they shall soon be taking a policy decision....17. The Health Department, Bihar must realize that Bhojpur district is not an exception and if reports are called for, each and every district may give the same picture and as this Court has taken note of the fact that regular deaths are taking place everywhere in ordinary medical cases specially when a healthy pregnant lady enters such Nursing Home for the delivery of the child but the family members come out with her dead body. Each and every life is precious and the State has the solemn duty to protect them at any cost." 

The Dr. Dilip Kumar (supra) case was again taken up on November 7, 2025 and November 24, 2025 and on the last date, while modifying the order dated November 7, 2025, in para-3 of the order, the counter affidavit of the Health Department was incorporated as follows:  "5. That it is stated and submitted that the Health Department, Government of Bihar has taken note of the matter as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court issued by order dated 22.08.2025 and in that course, two State Level Committee for Saran, Tirhut, Darbhanga, Koshi and Purnia Division headed by Director-in-Chief (Administration), Health Services, Bihar, Patna and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90504 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 another committee for Patna, Magadh Munger and Bhagalpur Division headed by Director-in-Chief (Nursing), Health Services, Bihar, Patna have been constituted by the Health Department, Bihar by order issued vide Memo No. 1875(18) dated 08.09.2025 for inspection of all Government and Private Hospitals/Nursing Homes/Pathology Centre and submitting a report to the Department with specific instructions to inspect the hospitals/Nursing homes in at least one district every fortnight and provide the inspection report to the department. 6. That it is relevant to state here that by departmental letter no. 1845 (18) dated 28.11.2013, Bihar Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013 has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 54 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.  

 

Justice Roy's order reads: "7. That it is further relevant to state here that by departmental notification No. 480 (18) dated 04.03.2025, Bihar Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013 has been amended and hospitals with 01-40 beds have been exempted from the said rules. Thereafter, guidelines have been sought by various Civil Surgeons of Bihar regarding the control and renewal of hospitals having 01-40 beds and other facts. In this background and in view of the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in this case, a six-member committee headed by Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna has been constituted by the Health Department by office order Memo No. 1853(18) dated 02.09.2025 to issue guidelines at departmental level for controlling Hospitals/Nursing Homes with  01-40 beds running in the surgeries. 8. That although the constituted committee was directed to provide the necessary guidelines to regulate 1-40 bedded hospitals/nursing homes within two days in the light of the guidelines sought by various Civil Surgeons. But due to the committee reviewing the matter in depth, the report could not be provided on time. 9. That the Health Department, Government of Bihar is actively pursuing the matter as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court." 

 

It has been submitted that the policy for regulation of small hospitals is in the final stages. Under the notification dated March 4, 2025, temporary relaxation was given to hospitals with 1–40 beds. After this, the committee constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. Rekha Jha submitted its report on February 20, 2026. The draft has received the approval of the Law Department and is currently under consideration with the Finance Department. 

Chief Justice Bajanthri led Division Bench sets aside order by Justice Dr. Anshuman in a Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme case

In Saurabh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat & Ors.(2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it set aside the 3-page long order dated March 20, 2025 by Justice Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge of the High Court, which had turned down the appellant’s grievance on certain alleged allegations.This is the 11th judgement by Chief Justice Baajathri. 

The appellant had assailed the order by Justice Dr. Anshuman passed in Saurabh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat & Ors.(2025). 

Justice Dr. Anshuman had dismissed the writ petition which had prayer for setting aside the decision taken by the District Screening Committee in its meeting dated January 18, 2025 convened under the chairmanship of respondent District Magistrate, Patna and Communicated issued under the signature of respondent Deputy Collector-Establishment, Patna, whereby the benefit of MACP in terms with MACP Rules 2010 has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of not having passed the Departmental Accounts Examination. It was also prayed to grant first MACP to the petitioner with effect from June 2012, when the petitioner having completed 10 years of qualifying service, became eligible for grant of first MACP in terms with MACP Rules 2010. The petitioner had further prayed for granting him the benefit of 2nd MACP from due date when he completed 20 years of qualifying service. He sought a direction from the Court to the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary after allowing him the monetary benefit on grant of such 1st and 2nd MACP to the petitioner with effect from June 2012, in terms of MACP Rules 2010, taking into account that as conclusively held by the Supreme Court as well as the full bench of the High Court, passing of departmental accounts examination is not an essential requirement for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP to the otherwise eligible employees like the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the decision of the District Screening Committee, Patna, has been challenged before the High Court. The State's counsel raised preliminary objection and submitted that "all pages are not in continuation. Internal page of the alleged Memo is page-7, page-14, page-26, page-27 and then final page is page-15. Counsel for the State submits that there is some interpolation in the said letter. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has no explanation for the same. 6. As such, this writ petition is dismissed."

The Division Bench felt necessary to reproduce para of the order dated March 20, 2025,  which reads: “4. Learned Counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that from Annexure-P/1 of the writ petition it transpires that all pages are not in continuation. Internal page of the alleged Memo is page-7, page-14, page-26, page-27 and then final page is page-15. Counsel for the State submits that there is some interpolation in the said letter.” 

Justice Bajanthri has recorded in his judgment dated September 24, 2025 that "The counsel for the State on instruction had submitted that there was no interpolation in the letter vide Annexure-P/1." This observation contradicted para 4 of the order dated March 20, 2025 passed by Justice Dr. Anshuman.   

Allowing the LPA, Justice Bajanthri observed: ''4. In the light of the aforementioned submission, the order of the learned Single Judge could have been set aside and remanded, however, having regard to the fact that it is a settled matter even in the absence of passing departmental examination, employee is entitled to benefit of MACP in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision read with the Full Bench decision of this Court, the appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.03.2025 passed in CWJC No. 4253 of 2025, and it is set aside and so also official respondents memo no. 1 dated 18.01.2025 insofar as denial of MACP benefit is also set aside. 5. The concerned respondent is hereby directed to extend the MACP benefit to the appellant including arrears of amount within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.'' 

Strangely, the judgement of the Patna High Court's Division Bench does not mention the name of the Supreme Court decision which is required to be read with the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court on MACP.

The fact remains Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was considered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421. This judgment elaborately compared the MACPS with the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, which was introduced with effect from August 9, 1999 and continued to remain in force till August 31, 2008. The Court has held that the MACP Scheme  differed from the ACP scheme on several aspects, including two significant ones. First, the ACP Scheme envisaged financial upgradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service without one or two promotions, as the case may be, whereas the MACP Scheme envisaged three financial upgradations after completion of regular service of 10, 20, and 30 years without promotions and continuing on the same Grade Pay for a decade. Second, the financial upgradation under the ACPS was to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post in the service whereas, under the MACPS, financial upgradation was not with reference to the next higher promotional post but to the next higher grade pay in the scale of pay, as notified upon implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 20084. The decision in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) was subsequently followed and elaborated upon by the Court in (Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma and Others (2021) 5 SCC 579; Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another v. K. Sudheesh Kumar and Others 2022) 3 SCC 649; and Union of India and Others v. Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1058. 

Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-macp-scheme-high-court-jurisdiction-government-policies-1352078

Apparently, drawing on these judgements, Justice Bajanthri, concluded: ''8. In the alternative, if the appellant is entitled to any promotion as on the date of MACP due, he may be promoted on par with his junior and extend all service and monetary benefit within the time limit stipulated supra.''

34,540 teachers appointment case decided in 2018 by Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay has reached Supreme Court

In Nand Kishor Ojha vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a special leave petition which arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 5, 2018 passed by the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Anil Kumar Upadhyay and Chief Justice Rajendra Menon. The 52-page long judgement was authored by Justice Upadhyay. Supreme Court's order states that it has to be listed it again on May 6, 2025 to enable the counsel to place on record additional documents, in particular, the appointment letters of the petitioners.

All the petitioners of writ applications were appointed against the 34,540 posts advertised vide advertisement No. 210 of 2010 in terms of Bihar Special Elementary Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2010 in the year 2012. Appointment/selection process of the petitioners was undertaken by the respondent-State in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in MJC No.297/2007. Foundational fact for issuance of for direction of the Apex Court for appointment against 34540 posts of Assistant Teacher in Elementary School in Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007 are set out. In 1991 recruitment rules for recruitment of assistant teachers in elementary/primary schools in the State of Bihar underwent a change. The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) was authorised to conduct selection process and recommend for appointment of Assistant Teacher. In the amended Recruitment Rules trained and untrained persons were eligible for appointment following the selection process by the Bihar Public Service Commission. On 8th of October 1991 the BPSC advertised 25,000 posts and thereafter conducted preliminary test as well as the final test. On the basis of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission 19,272 candidates were selected and recommended for appointment as Assistant Teachers. Out of 19272 selected candidates 17281 were untrained. A writ petition was filed in the High Court by the candidate having trained qualification that the action of the respondents making appointment of untrained ignoring the available trained candidates is illegal and arbitrary. This issue was finally taken to the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others: in SLP(C) No. 23187 of 1996 reported in (1998) 9 SCC 227. The Court vide order dated September 5, 1997 had decided the special leave petition.

The election was made for nearly 25,000 posts. According to the figures given by the State of Bihar in the affidavit dated 14-8-1997 filed by Deepak Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Education, Government of Bihar, total number of 19,700 candidates were selected and recommended for appointment by the Commission and out of these 19,272 persons have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in various schools. The number of trained teachers in the cadre of Assistant Teachers thus appointed is 1991, while the number of untrained teachers is 17,281. It would thus appear that out of the 25,000 posts for which selection was made about 6000 posts remain to be filled. Some of these posts will have to be set apart for candidates belonging to reserved categories.

Bihar Govt complying with High Court's directions to rectify "the manifest illegalities" in the selection process of all District Collectorates

Important Notice regarding selection process of office attendant/attendant(Special) was issued on March 31, 2023 in compliance with Patna High Court's order dated December 18, 2019. Important notice regarding selection process of office attendant/attendant(Special) for all district collectorates was issued on April 10, 2023 in compliance of Patna High Court's order dated December 18, 2019. Similar notices were issued on January 15, 2024, January 22, 2024, August 7, 2024, August 30, 2024, September 9, 2024 and October 9, 2024. It is apparent that High Court's order set right a long standing illegal selection process.

The High Court had directed "the respondents, particularly, the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and the District Magistrate, Gaya to ensure that the process of selection through the advertisement in question is completed by adopting a fair procedure." Notably, General Administration Department, is under the Chief Minister of Bihar. The judgement was delivered on December 18, 2019. It was authored by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh. Justice Singh is currently the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. 

The petitioners had approached Patna High Court to allege that the criteria laid down in the advertisement was not followed in preparing the provisional panel list of candidates for appointment against Class-IV posts in Gaya Collectorate under the signature of the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and other members of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. The petition was against nine respondents, namely, 1) the State of Bihar, 2) Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, 3) Commissioner,  Gaya, 4) Collector, Gaya cum Chairman, Selection Committee Group, Gaya, 5) Additional Collector, Gaya, 6) District Development Commissioner, Gaya, 7) District Welfare Officer, Gaya, 8) Additional Collector Establishment, Gaya and 9) Deputy Collector Establishment, Gaya. 

Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh of the High Court has recorded in his judgement in Kapil Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Others that the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 4 to 6 revealed that no process of selection of any nature was adopted. Besides Kapil Kumar, the other petitioners were: Hardeo Prasad, Raj Kishore Prasad, Ramjivan Prasad, Mahendra Prasad, Raju Thakur and Md. Ishteyak. Similar petitions were tagged with it. In Shambhu Prasad vs. the State of Bihar, the other petitioners were: Ajay Kumar, Dhanwanti Kumari and Surendra Kumar Sinha. In Aftab Hussain vs. the State of Bihar, the other petitioners were: Ravindra Kumar, Md. Shamim and  Satish Kumar.

The Court observed that there was nothing in  the submission of the State to suggest that the persons were engaged on daily wage basis after following any fair procedure by giving equal and fair opportunity to others, equally willing to serve as daily wage employees, more in need of employment/ engagement. The Court noted that such engagements, "are more often back door" and "the very process of selection as adopted by the respondents through the advertisement in question to be wholly illegal, arbitrary and patently in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." It added, "no process of selection has at all been adopted which can be said to be fair and impartial, through written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging inter se merit of the candidates."

The Court has recorded in its judgement that "in response to a query made by this Court as to whether any selection process has been undertaken for filling up the said posts from open market giving unemployed youths an opportunity to participate in last few decades, nothing positive has been shown." The query was made in the context of a system having emerged for filling up Class-IV posts in the collectorates on the basis of panel of daily wage workers under the collectorate in the State of Bihar.   

The Court found that "Here is a case where the advertisement does not disclose the number of vacancies/ posts in question and it has just been issued to prepare a panel for filling up the posts. Such exercise renders the statutory rules framed for appointment against such posts under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, meaningless. The Court relied on Supreme Court's decision in Renu and others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another reported in (2014)14 SCC 50, to stress the need of disclosing the number of posts available for selection and recruitment.

The Court observed: "The respondents are obliged to follow a fair process of selection in accordance with the statutory rules and constitutional mandate. It is noteworthy that though the rules have been framed for selection and appointment against Class-IV (Group-D) posts, no clear and definite process of selection has been laid down, therein. If no transparent, fair and impartial procedure is adopted for judging the inter se merit of the candidates, who have applied in response to the advertisement made, the eligible candidates cannot get a fair chance to compete, which would be violative of the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution", as held in case of UPSC vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela reported in (2006)2 SCC 482.

It recollected the Supreme Court’s decision in case of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav reported in (2007) 8 SCC 264 wherein the principles to be adopted in the matter of public appointments has been laid down. The principles enunciated in case of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. which have been taken note of with approval by the Supreme Court in case of Renu  are as under: 

“(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/ government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.
(4) Those who come by back door should go through that door.
(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules.
(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection.
(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.”

In Renu case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider power of appointment granted to the Chief Justice of a High Court under Article 229(1) of the Constitution and in no uncertain terms has held that even the said power granted to the Chief Justice is subject to Article 16(1) which guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment. The expression ‘opportunity’ has been explained in case of Renu (supra) as ‘a chance of employment’ and held that what is guaranteed under Article 16(1) is this opportunity of employment ‘equally available to all’. The observations made in case of Renu (supra) in paragraph 27 are significant and is a reminder for all authorities exercising their power and jurisdiction to make appointment against a public post. The Court made the following observations:

“27. To say that the Chief Justice can appoint a person without following the procedure provided under Articles 14 and 16 would lead to an indefinite conclusion that the Chief Justice can dismiss him also without holding any inquiry or following the principles of natural justice/ Rules, etc. for as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, power to appoint includes power to remove/ suspend/ dismiss. (Vide Pradyat Kumar Bose v. High Court of Calcutta and Chief Justice of A.P. vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu) But as no employee can be removed without following the procedure prescribed by law or in violation of the terms of his appointment, such a course would not be available to the Chief Justice. Therefore, the natural corollary of this is that the Chief Justice cannot make any appointment in contravention of the statutory rules, which have to be in consonance with the scheme of our Constitution.”

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, the Supreme Court remarked that every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness which is the very essence of Rule of Law and bare minimal requirement. The Court noted with approval the observation of Kerala High Court in case of V. Punnan Thomas vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1969 Ker 81: “The Government, is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largesse. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal."

In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 1, the Court has held that interaction of Articles 14, 16 and 19 shows that the requirement of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights and where any Government action, whether it be under the authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making law, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness in public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid.

In Secy. State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi(3), the Supreme Court has held that it is an obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution to ensure that all citizens ‘equally’ have the right to livelihood. 

In I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1, the Court held that fundamental rights occupy a unique place in the lives of civilized society and has been described as “transcendentally” “inalienable” and “primordial”. 

In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Court held that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 

Drawing on these decisions of the Supreme Court and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, Patna High Court has held that the advertisement to the extent that it allows preference under sub-clause (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and (6) of Clause 7 of the advertisement which dealt with work experience of the aspirants has been "held to be illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are struck down accordingly." The terms of advertisement contemplated preparation of a panel of daily wage employees only by giving them first, second and third preference and those who did not have the opportunity to work as daily wage employee are to be placed at the bottom of the panel, whose merit will depend on respective dates of their birth. The appointments against Class-IV posts, in terms of the scheme, was to be made on the basis of such panel.

The Court's order reads: "In my opinion, holding of written examination of the candidates who have applied against the said advertisement would be a fair procedure for preparation of merit-list, in the absence of any provision in the Rules. This, in my opinion, would ensure transparency in the process of selection. Since the advertisement was issued more than six years ago, the respondents are directed to conclude the process of selection and appointment against such posts, which were available on the date of issuance of advertisement, within a period of three months from today. The respondents are further directed to ensure that a fair process of selection, strictly in accordance with statutory rules and in conformity with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is undertaken on regular basis, after advertising number of post, so that the persons acquiring eligibility after the initiation of one selection process have a chance to seek and participate in subsequent selection processes. This practice of fairness in the process of selection for filling up public posts generates faith in the hearts and minds of the citizen in the governance, laws and the Constitution."

The advertisement No. 01/2013 had referred to the Bihar Group-D (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 2010 framed by the State of Bihar under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules came into effect from the date of its publication in the official gazette on March 29, 2010.