MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was initially filed by one Manoj Kumar to recommend his name and to appoint him to the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in any nationalised High School in pursuance of Advertisement No. 2/91 on the ground that he (petitioner) is an handicapped. Subsequently, one intervenor Application (I.A. No. 2823/2000) was filed by four others, namely, Gajendra Jha, Om Prakash Chaudhari, Smt. Indu Singh arid Janardan Singh to implead them as party-petitioner to the writ petition and to grant them similar relief, they being handicapped.

(2.) The fact as pleaded and not disputed shows that an Advertisement No. 2/91 was published by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board, Patna (Board for short) for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in nationalised High Schools. Such advertisement was published on the requisition of the State, when a Guideline No. 148 dated 21st November, 1990 was, in vogue, to provide certain benefit of reservation to handicapped persons against their respective reserved vacancies the Divisional level and District level posts. The petitioners being eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) applied, claiming themselves to be handicapped. They were asked to appear in the interview held in December 1996. The Board, on selection published the merit list on 22nd January, 1996 showing the petitioners as successful in the selection under the category of "Handicap". However, when the Director, Secondary Education published a notice in the newspaper on 20th April, 1990, showing the names of successful candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers, the names of petitioners and other handicapped persons were not shown therein. The appointments were made out of the list published by the Director, Secondary Education, but petitioners having not considered as handicapped persons for appointment and they having not provided with order of appointment, the writ petition was preferred by petitioner Manoj Kumar.

(3.) The Respondent Board in their counter-affidavit, while accepted that the name of petitioner Manoj Kumar was shown to be successful and recommended, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State and its authorities, they have shown the ground for not issuing orders of appointment in favour of petitioners as handicapped persons.