Full Judgment
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
1. Matter of regularization and appointment on Class IV post is vexing this Court since long.
2. In pursuance of the order dated 16.4.1996 passed in C.W.J.C.-No. 911 of 1996, the Superintendent, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai published advertisement in the daily Newspaper Hindustan in its issue date 15.7.1996 inviting application for appointment to the post of Male/Female Ward Attendants besides the other posts. Petitioners offered their candidature for appointment as Male/Female Ward Attendants. The candidature of the petitioners as also other candidates were considered and petitioners had not been selected for appointment.
3. It is the assertion of the petitioners that the procedure followed for appointment was absolutely illegal and in violation of various circulars issued by the State Government. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the entire selection process undergone for appointment to the post of Male/Female Ward Attendants and consequential direction to start the process afresh.
4. It is common ground that selection was made on the basis of educational qualification, the experience and general appearance for which. 10, 20, 20 marks were allocated. For the marks allocated for educational qualification, the candidates having passed 7th, 8th, 9th and matriculation examinations, were given 7, 8, 9 and. 10 marks respectively. For experience, marks were allocated not on the basis of the period of work either in the private Nursing Home or in the Government Hospital but on the basis of their performance. On the basis of awareness of the candidates, at the time of their performance before the Selection Committee, marks were given under the head 'general appearance'.
5. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the manner in which the marks have been allocated and given, is unknown to law which is absolutely arbitrary and on this ground alone, the entire selection process is vitiated in the eye of law.
6. Standing Counsel No. II, however, appearing on behalf of the State submits that any decision on the aforesaid question shall have bearing on a large number of candidates who have been selected and appointed as Male/Female Ward Attendants and as such this question is not fit to be addressed in their absence.
7. Mr. Mukherjee then prays to implead some of such persons who have been appointed as Male/Female Ward Attendants to overcome the aforesaid difficultly pointed out by the Standing Counsel.
8. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find force in the submission of the standing counsel that any decision in regard to the procedure followed for appointment shall adversely affecte the persons selected and appointed. Undisputedly, none of such person has been impleaded as respondents.
9. As regards the prayer of the petitioner to implead some such selected candidates as respondents, I am not inclined to accede to that prayer also. As stated earlier, the advertisement for appointment was issued as back as in the year 1996. The process of appointment had already concluded in the year 1999. At such a distance of time, it shall be inequitable to go into the validity of appointment made long ago by impleading the persons who have been selected for appointment. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to permit the petitioner to implead the selected candidates or some of them as respondents.
10. Hence, writ application suffers from non-joinder of party. It stands dismissed accordingly without any order as to cost.