STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus KAMLESH JAIN

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 05-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
KAMLESH JAIN 
NOVEMBER 5, 1992 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
C 
Anic/es 32 and 226-f'ublic Interest Litigation-Writ Petition filed seek-
D 
E 
ing relief for an ailing doctor, staying with brother-Maintainability of-High 
Coun granting relief-Validity of-State not expected to choose individuals for 
special treatment-Judicial process not to be allowed to be used for the 
satisfaction of individual whims-<Juidelines for entenainment of such claims 
laid down. 
A large number of doctors employed in the State Health Services of 
the appellant-State were leaving India for higher studies, after obtaining 
leave for a couple of years, and thereafter, they were neither returning to 
India, nor were sending any further applications for extension of leave. 
This was causing considerable hardship to the public. As this trend 
persisted, the state authorities wanted to take appropriate corrective 
steps. Since the absentee doctors had not informed the department of _ 
their addresses, personal service of notice on such doctors could not be 
effected. A general notice was published and press communique was 
issued in newspapers in India and abroad calling upon them to offer their 
F 
explanations for remaining absent from service for more than five years, 
within the specified time and indicating that on their failure to do so, the 
services of 320 doctors would be terminated with the concurrence of the 
State Public Service Commission and the approval of the State Cabinet. 
Services of doctors were, accordingly, terminated. 
G 
The respondent tiled a Public Interest Litigation before the High 
Court stating that the particular doctor was unwell and was in need of 
financial help. The services of this doctor bad also been terminated along 
with others. The details as to how she was taken ill and admitted in a 
hospital outside the country and then brought back to India for further 
H 
treatment in the State, were given. 
356 
.. 
STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMLESH JAIN 
357 
The High Court directed the appellants to pay the post retirement A 
benefits to the medical officer doctor concerned. Earlier the High Court 
bad also directed payment of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent writ petitioner 
as relief to the doctor concerned. 
Allowing the appeal of the State, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. It is not known how the respondent-writ petitioner 
became so interested in the beneficiary, who was being taken care of in the 
hospital and receiving attention of eminent doctors, and who had atleast 
B 
a brother with whom she was staying for sometime. The respondent-writ 
petitioner could not tell about the other family members and relations of C 
the beneficiary or bow and why in this background the respondent chose 
the beneficiary for showering her benevolence in preference over the far 
more needy old and sick persons who are, unfortunately, in large number 
in the appellant-State. The judgment under challenge also does not indi-
cate any reason. (360-B-D] 
1.2. Since there is no reason at all in the order under challenge or 
in the writ petition which may justify the relief granted in the present case, 
the writ petition should have been dismissed. [360-H; 361-A] 
D 
1.3. There is also no reason to accede to the request made on behalf E 
of the respondent that the cheque for Rs. 2000, mentioned in the first 
paragraph of the High Court's orders, drawn in the name of the 
beneficiary, may be directed to be drawn in the name of the respondent-
writ petitioner for the beneficiary's lingers bad since become stiff and 
hence the cheque conld not be encasbed. There is no suggestion to the 
effect that the beneficiary bas no relation of her own, who can look after 
her needs. (361-B] 
2. There is no doubt that the State should strive to promote the 
welfare of its people so that at least the bare necessities of life are met and 
F 
the needy and the sick are properly looked after. This can be done only by 
adopting a welfare scheme in the interest of the general public; and since G 
the resources of the State are not unlimited, the State is not expected, in 
absence of relevant reasons, to choose an individual for special treatment 
at the cost of the others. Ordinarily, therefore, it is desirable for the State 
authorities to take up the individual cases coming to their notice and do 
their best in accordance with the policy decision of general application. H 
358 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.