Dr Bivek Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:1144

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 6142 of 2018

¶4

¶5

Rajarshi Bhushan, aged about 33 years, son of Dr. SBP Singh, resident of Flat GFK, Hirak Square, Hirak Point, Memco More, P.O Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad

¶6

Laxmi Narayan, aged about 37 years, son of Ramesh Prasad, resident of Doctors Colony, Randhir Verma Chowk, P.O., GPO, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad …Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶9

Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi District Superintendent of Education, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶10

Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

With

¶13

W.P. (S) No. 6279 of 2018

¶14

¶15

Amrita Dayal, aged about 36 years, wife of Bipin Sinha, resident of 403 Baldeo Apartment, Near Pragati Nursing Home, Phuphuadi, Saraidhela, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad …Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶18

Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶19

Principal, Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad …Respondents

¶20

With

¶21

W.P. (S) No. 6508 of 2018

¶22

¶23

Richa Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Dr. Abhijit Maji, resident of Plot No. 326, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶24

1

¶25

2026:JHHC:1144

¶26

Poonam Kumari, aged about 34 years, wife of Dr. Sujit Marandi, resident of Village Terpa, P.O. Terpa, P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand …Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶29

Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶30

Superintendent, M.G.M. Medical College Hospital, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum

¶31

…Respondents

¶32

With

¶33

W.P. (S) No. 1220 of 2019

¶34

¶35

Sujeet Kumar Tiwary, aged about 34 years, son of Bhageshwar Tiwary, resident of Quarter No. B 82, Sector I, HEC Colony, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand …Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶38

Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶39

Principal, Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad, P.O and P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad

¶40

Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶41

…Respondents

¶42

With

¶43

W.P. (S) No. 5870 of 2024

¶44

¶45

Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha, Aged about 31 years, son of Gautam Prasad Sinha, resident of 42A, Iswar Chatterjee Road, Kundu Bagan, Panihati (M), Sukchar, P.O.-Sukchar, P.S.-Khardah, District-North 24 Parganas (West Bengal) …Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

State of Jharkhand

¶48

Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education

¶49

2

¶50

2026:JHHC:1144

¶51

and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002

¶52

Director, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand834002

¶53

Superintendent, Shaheed Nirmal Mahato Medical College and Hospital Dhanbad, having its office at B.C.C.L. Township, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad P.O. P.S & District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand-82005 ….Respondents

¶54

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶55

--For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate [W.P(S) Nos. 6142/18, 6279/18, 6508/18, 1220/19] M/s. Saurabh Shekhar, Anurag Kumar, Shail Lakra, Advocates [W.P.(S) No. 5870/24] For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.A.G-IV Mr. Shishir Suman, A.C to AAG-IV [W.P(S) Nos. 6142/18, 6279/18 & 6508/18] Mrs. Sweta Shukla, A.C to A.A.G-I [W.P(S) No. 1220/19] Mr. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C to G.A.-V [W.P(S) No. 5870/24]

¶56

13/15.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

2. All these writ applications are having similar

¶58

issue; accordingly, all were heard together with consent of the

¶59

parties and are being disposed of by common order.

¶60

3. For brevity, the prayers made in the respective petitions are mentioned herein below:

¶61

W.P.(S) No. 6142 of 2018

¶62

(a) For quashing the letter no. 3092 dated 01.12.2018, whereby it has been stipulated that the appointment of the Petitioners was for a tenure of 3 years which is lapsing on 22.12.2018;

¶63

(b) Upon quashing the said letter no. 3092 dated 01.12.2018, for a direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue on the post of Senior Residents by treating them as permanent employees;

¶64

(c) For quashing the advertisement as contained in the press release dated 06.12.2018 for fresh appointment to the post

¶65

3

¶66

2026:JHHC:1144

¶67

of tutors/ senior residents advertising the very same posts as being occupied by the Petitioners;

¶68

(d) For a declaration that the senior residents/tutors like the Petitioners were appointed on a permanent basis and not on tenure posts;

¶69

(e) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the operation and implementation of the letter no. 3092 dated 01.12.2028 and for a further direction upon the Respondents to allow the petitioners to continue on their respective posts;

¶70

(f) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the recruitment/appointment process under the advertisement as contained in the press release dated 06.12.2018.

¶71

W.P.(S) No. 6279 of 2018

¶72

(a) For quashing the office order contained in memo no. 2062 dated 16.11.2018 whereby it has inter alia been stipulated that the appointment of the Petitioners was for a tenure of 3 years which will end on 25.12.2018 and the Petitioners have been further directed to hand over charge to the concerned person as ordered by their Head of Department on the said date;

¶73

(b) Upon quashing the said office order contained in memo no. 2062 dated 16.11.2018, for a direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue on the post of Tutor by treating them as permanent employees;

¶74

(c) For quashing the advertisement as contained in the press release dated 06.12.2018 for fresh appointment to the post of tutors/senior residents advertising the very same posts as being occupied by the Petitioners;

¶75

(d) For a declaration that the tutors like the Petitioners were appointed on a permanent basis and not on tenure posts;

¶76

(e) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the operation and implementation of the office order contained in memo no. 2062 dated 16.11.2018 and for a further direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue on their respective posts;

¶77

(f) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the recruitment/ appointment process under the advertisement as contained in the press release dated 06.12.2018.

¶78

W.P.(S) No. 6508 of 2018

¶79

(a) For quashing the letter no. 3422 dated 06.12.2018 whereby it has been stipulated that the appointment of the Petitioners was for a tenure of 3 years which is lapsing on various dates in the month of December, 2018 (b) Upon quashing the said letter no. 3422 dated 06.12.2018, for a direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue on the post of Senior Residents by treating them as permanent employees; (c) For quashing the advertisement as contained in the press release dated 06.12.2018 for fresh appointment to the post of tutors/senior residents advertising the very

¶80

4

¶81

2026:JHHC:1144

¶82

same posts as being occupied by the Petitioners; (d) For a declaration that the senior residents/tutors like the Petitioners were appointed on a permanent basis and not on tenure posts;

¶83

(e) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the operation and implementation of the letter no. 34222 dated 06.12.2018 and for a further direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue on their respective posts; (f) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the recruitment/ appointment process under the advertisement as contained in the press release dated 06.12.2018.

¶84

W.P.(S) No. 1220 of 2019

¶85

(a) For quashing the office order contained in memo no. 303 dated 25.02.2019 whereby it has inter alia been stipulated that the appointment of the Petitioners was for a tenure of 3 years which will end on 17.03.2019 and the Petitioner has relieved with effect from 17.03.2019 and has been further directed to hand over charge to the concerned person as ordered by their Head of Department on the said date (b) Upon quashing the said office order contained in memo no. 303 dated 25.02.2019, for a direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue on the post of Tutor by treating him as permanent employee; (c) For quashing clause 2 as contained in notification dated 14.03.2016 as the stipulation in the said clause that the appointment of the Petitioner is for a three years’ tenure is contrary to the Advertisement issued for appointment as well as is de hors the Bihar Medical Education Service Admission to Cadre and Cadre Posts Rules, 1997;

¶86

(d) For a declaration that the tutors like the Petitioner were appointed on a permanent basis and not on tenure posts;

¶87

(e) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order staying the operation and implementation of the office order contained in memo no. 303 dated 25.02.2019 and for a further direction upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue on his post;

¶88

W.P.(S) No. 5870 of 2024

¶89

(1) For commanding upon the respondents to retain the petitioner in services and further to consider his case for extension of contract, in view of the fact that he has been appointed on the post of Junior Resident (non-academic), in Shaheed Nirmal Mahto Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, in the Department of Dentistry, against a vacant and sanctioned post, on which there has been no intimation of publication of advertisement for regular appointment, and on that account, the respondents cannot undertake a process to replace one contractual appointee with another, and also in view of the fact that there is no regular appointee working on the available

¶90

5

¶91

2026:JHHC:1144

¶92

four posts of Junior Resident in the hospital-all are contractual appointees, further there is no medical officer; (ii) For a direction upon the respondents to conduct a regular selection process, or regularize the petitioner against the vacant and sanctioned post for Junior Resident, on which he has been appointed after following due process of law, vide appointment letter dated 30.10.2021;

¶93

(iii) For commanding upon the respondents for allowing the petitioner to continue in service, during the pendency of the present writ application.

¶94

4. During course of hearing, this Court after going through the Guideline dated 05.06.1992 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India passed an order. For brevity the order dated 24^th November, 2025 is extracted herein below:

¶95

“ The grievance of the respective petitioners is that in the appointment letter, there was no mention of tenure post but they were appointed only for three years. However, the case remained pending before this Court and stay was also granted against the order of discharge from service after completion of tenure post. As such, practically the petitioners are having experience of about 10 years.

¶96

2. The stand of the respondents is that the tenure of Senior Resident is only for three years; however, the candidature of a person who is already working as a Senior Resident in a central institution/hospital may be considered for appointment as Senior Resident in another central institution.

¶97

3. In this peculiar fact, when the tenure post of three years is over long back as the stay was granted by this Court and all the petitioners are working on the same post, it is necessary that some senior government officer should assist the Court on this particular issue that since now due to pendency of the writ applications, all the petitioners are having more than ten years of experience; then in view of the guidelines dated 05.06.1992 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, whether these petitioners can be accommodated as Senior Resident in another central institutions or hospital or not.

¶98

4. Accordingly, the 2^nd Respondent is requested to appear before this Court through V.C on the next date of hearing in order to assist this Court on the above query.

¶99

5. List this case on 04.12.2025 at 12:15 PM.”

¶100

5. Pursuant to the said order, the Joint Secretary,

¶101

Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare was present and on his submission the case was listed

¶102

6

¶103

2026:JHHC:1144

¶104

on 15.01.2026. For brevity, the order dated 4^th December,

¶105

2025 is extracted hereinbelow:

¶106

“ Pursuant to the order dated 24.11.2025 Mr. Lalit Mohan Shukla, Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand is present before this Court through V.C. He submits that the petitioners can also apply in the upcoming examination which is going to be held soon through JPSC and as per the Rule itself there are weightage for all those doctors who are continuing their services.

¶107

Having regard to the aforesaid submission admittedly the petitioners are working till date. As a matter of fact, there was a stay of the impugned order vide order dated 17.12.2018. Even otherwise the petitioners are in service and they are getting regular increments also. Therefore, interim order dated 17.12.2018/29.10.2024 shall continue till further orders.

¶108

The respondents shall file an affidavit giving the facts about the upcoming examination and adjustment of these petitioners.

¶109

List this case on 15.01.2026.

¶110

Personal appearance of Mr. Lalit Mohan Shukla, Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand is dispensed with.”

¶111

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid two orders,

¶112

supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 & 2 in W.P(S) No. 6142 of 2018 , wherein they have stated that Jharkhand Medical Education Service (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 has been framed and the Petitioners, who are Medical Practitioners will get weightage in the upcoming examination.

¶113

For brevity, Paras 5, 6 & 7 of supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2 in W.P(S) No. 6142 of 2018 , dated 06.01.2026 are extracted herein below:

¶114

“5. That, thereafter on the basis of above- mentioned submissions, the Hon'ble Court directed the Respondents to file an affidavit indicating the facts relating to the upcoming examination and adjustment of these petitioners.

¶115

7

¶116

2026:JHHC:1144

¶117

6. That, in this regard, it is most humbly stated and submitted that the criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Medical Colleges are defined in Chapter- 4 of the Jharkhand Medical Education Service (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules 2018, wherein it is clearly provided at Annexure- B (iii) (Cha) of the said Rules, that doctors who are continuing in government service shall be awarded weightage of 2 marks for each year, subject to a maximum of 10 marks, at the time of interview.

¶118

7. That, it is most humbly stated and submitted that the requisition for the upcoming examination for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Medical Colleges will be sent to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, shortly.”

¶119

7. Having regard to the aforesaid affidavit, it is

¶120

evident that the State of Jharkhand has come up with a Rule and they are going to conduct the examination for Assistant Professor in near future, for which some time will be consumed.

¶121

8 . As stated hereinabove, these petitioners having much experience will get the weightage. Thus, all these petitioners can appear in the upcoming examination whenever it will be conducted. However, since it is a case of Medical Practitioners, General and Dental, this Court is of the view that till the regular appointment is made; till that time, in order to avoid any chaos, all these petitioners shall continue working on the said post. Ordered accordingly.

¶122

It is further clarified that all these petitioners shall be governed by the new Rules. As stated hereinabove, they will get weightage subject to the maximum of 10

¶123

8

¶124

2026:JHHC:1144

¶125

marks. No further direction is required to be issued in these cases and the petitioners would be at liberty to appear in the upcoming examination which is going to be conducted soon; however as stated hereinabove they should not be disturbed and should be allowed to continue to work on the same post as they are continuously working after expiry of 3 years.

¶126

9. So far as the case of the writ petitioner in W.P(S) No. 5870 of 2024 is concerned, its facts are slightly different as the petitioner was appointed as Junior Resident for one year.

¶127

However, as stated hereinabove in the batch matters that the Government has already formulated a policy; accordingly, he would also be entitled to appear in the examination as and when the said examination will be conducted. Till then, he should also not be disturbed as in the case of other petitioners.

¶128

10. It goes without saying that after pursuing the notification, it appears that there is no reference of age relaxation; however, since affidavit is there that these petitioners would be getting 2 marks for each year and all are having 5-10 years of practice; as such, the petitioners, who will be crossing the age, they would be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for the grant of age relaxation. If any such situation arises with regard to age

¶129

9

¶130

2026:JHHC:1144

¶131

and if any such application is preferred before the competent authority, they shall take an appropriate decision in the background that they have already decided of giving marks weightage to the petitioners and/or other Doctors who are having experience.

¶132

11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, all these writ applications stand disposed of. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed.

¶133

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶134

15^th January, 2026 Jk Uploaded on 28/01/2026

¶135

10

Dr Bivek Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Bivek Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Ministry of Rural Development

Sheela Devi Vs Welfare

Akshoy Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Abhinav Paul Minj Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Health

Amrita Dayal Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Health

Rajarshi Bhushan Vs State of Jharkhand Thr Its Pr Secretary Deptt of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare