Patna High Court
Ram Naresh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 22 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5784 of 2025
======================================================
Ram Naresh Yadav S/o Bindeshwar Yadav, resident of Ward no.06, Village
Bahurba, P.O. Dhanouja, P.S. Phulparas, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary-Govt. of Bihar Patna.
2. The Add. Chief Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
3. The Director, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Collector, Madhubani, District- Madhubani.
5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani.
6. The Deputy Superintendent Referral Hospital Phulparas, Dt. Madhubani.
7. Dr. Ramnaresh Choudhary, father's name not known, Dy. Superintendent
Referral Hospital Phulparas, District Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
For the Resp. No. 7 : Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 22-08-2025
The present petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs :-
"1. That this petition by way of Public
Interest Litigation is being filed for issuance of writ
of appropriate nature, order or direction
commanding respondents to hold high level enquiry
permitting respondent no.6 (sic) posted at
Phulparas for last 25 years in exceptions to its
transfer and posting of other the Medical officers of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5784 of 2025 dt.22-08-2025
2/6
the district medical cadre or state health cadre
services: as his posting and continuance to one
place is not only against policies of the state
leading to disappointment in other medical officers
and improper encouragement to them to choose
ways to retain stagnated posting at place of
posting, but also lead deteriorations in medical
services and facilities to be provided at govt.
Hospitals.
The petitioner also prays for direction
to the respondent health department to ensure
uniform policy of transfer and posting of Medical
Officers of Bihar Health Service Cadre as per
tenure fixed for the transfer and posting without
undue discriminations or favour.
The petitioner also prays for enquiry of
the deteriorating medical facilities at Phulparas
Referral Hospital, Phulparas during the period of
posting of respondent no. 6 (sic) since patients
coming there for even delivery of child are forced to
take shelters at the private nursing Home of
respondent no. 6 (sic) & ors instead of getting
treatment in the Hospital. The medical services to
be provided at Phulparas Referral Hospital
Phulparas, district Madhubani has deteriorated as
people approaching this Hospital do not get proper
medical facility of investigation and medicines and
they are forced either to take services at Private
Nursing Centers or go to DMCH Darbhanga. On
numerous occasions people have raised protest
against poor medical facility and activities of
respdt no.6 (sic)."
Patna High Court CWJC No.5784 of 2025 dt.22-08-2025
3/6
2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel
assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the State and
Ms. Smriti Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present petition has been filed by way of Public Interest
Litigation. In fact, the petitioner is a social worker and he has no
direct or indirect personal interest with the transfer or posting of
any other individual doctor. Learned counsel further referred the
averments made in the memo of petition and, thereafter,
submitted that the State of Bihar does not follow the transfer
policy in the case of respondent No. 7. It has been contended
that the respondent No. 7 is posted at Phulparas Sub-Divisional
Hospital/Referral Hospital, District- Madhubani for about last
25 years. It is contended that against the policy of the State
Government, the respondent No. 7 continued at the said place. It
is further submitted that the respondent No. 7 is redirecting the
patients who are coming in the Sub-Divisional Hospital for
treatment to privately run medical clinics situated in the
surroundings of the hospital. During the last 5 years, the number
of patients referred to DMCH, Darbhanga has increased. It is
also stated that the patients are also being shifted to his private
Patna High Court CWJC No.5784 of 2025 dt.22-08-2025
4/6
clinic for treatment. Learned counsel further submits that
appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to transfer
the respondent No. 7 from the place in question and necessary
enquiry be initiated. However, at this stage, learned counsel
submits that now, after filing of the present petition, the
concerned respondent authority has constituted a Two-Man
Committee and the said Committee has submitted the report on
06.06.2025.
4
. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-State has opposed the present petition. It is mainly
contended that the present petition is not a Public Interest
Litigation and, in fact, for some private interest, the same has
been filed. However, learned counsel for the respondents has
further referred the averments made in the counter affidavit and
submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by the
petitioner, the concerned respondent authority constituted a
Two-Man Committee of Dr. Shambhu Narayan Jha, In-Charge
ACMO, Madhubani and Dr. Rajiv Ranjan, Deputy
Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Madhubani vide Letter No.
1598 dated 19.05.2025. It is further submitted that the said
Committee has enquired into the allegation levelled against the
respondent No. 7 and, thereafter, submitted the report on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5784 of 2025 dt.22-08-2025
5/6
06.06.2025, copy of which is placed on record at page no. 49 of
the compilation. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has not challenged the said decision/report of the
Two-Man Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents,
therefore, urged that the present petition be dismissed.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on
record. It transpires from the record that the petitioner has filed
the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
Relying on the policy of the State Government, it is the case of
the petitioner that the respondent No. 7 is working at the place
in question since last 25 years, despite which, he has not been
transferred. The another grievance is that the respondent No. 7
is diverting the patients to his private clinic and to some other
private hospitals, as a result of which, in the last 5 years, there is
decrease in the number of patients in the Sub-Divisional
Hospital, Madhubani. However, it is pertinent to note at this
stage that a similar type of complaint was made by the petitioner
to the concerned respondent authority and, therefore, the
respondent authority has constituted a Two-Man Committee.
The Committee has now enquired into the matter and, thereafter,
submitted the report on 06.06.2025. Copy of the said report is
Patna High Court CWJC No.5784 of 2025 dt.22-08-2025
6/6
placed on record at page No. 49. From the report submitted by
the Committee, it transpires that the number of patients in the
hospital in question has increased during the last 5 years. It is
also required to be observed that the petitioner has not
challenged the decision of the Two-Man Committee constituted
by the concerned respondent authority.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, merely because the respondent No. 7 is not
transferred from the place in question to any other place, it
cannot be presumed that for some oblique motive the said
person has not been transferred. Even otherwise, it is for the
respondent-State to consider the aforesaid aspect.
7. We are of the view that the present petition in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation is not required to be
entertained in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/Saurabh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
[ad_1]
Source link