District Magistrate must decide reverted contractual Executive Assistants’ representations under applicable policy and parity principles.

The Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society issued an advertisement in 2013 for appointment of Executive Assistants on a contractual basis. The petitioners applied, appeared in the written examination and skill test, were empanelled, and were subsequently appointed and posted in the District Health Society, Bhojpur.

While they were working, they were reverted to the district panel by Memo No. 537 dated 7 April 2021, allegedly because the data centre was to be operated by a selected agency and funds would no longer be disbursed for payment of Executive Assistants in the District Health Society.

The petitioners relied on similar orders passed in respect of Executive Assistants in other districts and on Office Order/Memo No. 3/9 dated 29 January 2024.

Their representations to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and the District Magistrate remained pending.

The State and the Bihar State Health Society contended that the petitioners had been appointed only for a prescribed contractual period and had validly been reverted to the district panel.

The Court noted that similar writ petitions had been disposed of by orders dated 28 June 2023, 21 November 2024 and 30 June 2026.

Whether the petitioners’ reversion from the post of Executive Assistant to the district panel, on the ground that the data centre would be operated by a selected agency and funds were unavailable, required reconsideration in light of the treatment accorded to similarly situated employees and applicable government policy.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for consideration and disposal of their pending representations by the competent authority.

Contractual appointments are governed by the terms of appointment and applicable governmental policy, while administrative authorities must consider similarly situated persons consistently and in accordance with law.

The Court relied on the institutional approach adopted in identical writ proceedings, including CWJC Nos. 6646 of 2022, 17633 of 2024 and 1802 of 2022, and directed consideration of the petitioners’ claims in light of the General Administration Department’s policy decision and orders passed in favour of similarly situated persons.

No specific statutory provision or binding judicial precedent was cited.

The Court did not finally adjudicate the legality of the petitioners’ reversion or determine whether their contractual engagement created an enforceable right to continued posting.

It noted the competing submissions: the petitioners relied on allegedly favourable treatment of similarly situated Executive Assistants, whereas the respondents relied on the contractual nature and limited duration of the appointments.

Since the petitioners’ representations were pending and analogous matters had been disposed of by directing administrative consideration, the Court adopted the same course.

It required the competent authority to examine the petitioners’ individual claims against the applicable policy and the treatment of similarly situated persons.

The petitioners were granted four weeks to file individual representations before the District Magistrate, who was directed to decide them within three months of receipt or production of the order.

The District Magistrate was specifically directed to consider the General Administration Department’s policy, the cases of similarly situated persons, and the orders passed on their representations.

The order directs filing before the “District Magistrate, Madhepura,” although the petitioners’ stated postings and the array of parties refer to Bhojpur; this apparent inconsistency is present in the judgment itself.