KAMINI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application was preferred by petitioners against the orders of appointment made in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 10 with further prayer to consider the case of petitioners for appointment to the posts of Headmistress in Nationalised/project school in pursuance of Advertisement no. 3/91.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case shows that the petitioners are working as Asstt. Teachers in different High Schools and being eligible for appointment to the posts of Asstt. Teacher applied in pursuance of Advertisement no.

(3.) ACCORDING to petitioners, the respondent no. 4 obtained M.Sc. (Botany) degree as a regular student of R.K. College, Madhubani though she was working during that period as an Asstt. Teacher in Girls ' High School, Jainagar. Similarly, respondent no. 5, who had to clear three years degree course in Arts, appeared in examination for 300 marks of Sociology whereas she was required to appear in course for 900 total marks with English as a compulsory subject. Without passing those examination, she directly appeared in M.A. Sociology examination from L.N. Mithila University as private candidate and passed the same. Thereby, both of them are not entitled for any point for post graduate degree, it is stated that the matter was reported to the authorities when a three men Committee was constituted which found the allegation against respondent nos. 4 & 5 as true. So far as respondent no. 6 is concerned, it is alleged that she was appointed as Asstt. Teacher in 1993. She was shown as general category in the first panel as also in the second panel. However, at the time of appointment, she was given appointment as reserved category. Specific plea made that the respondent no. 6 never applied as a reserved category but the Director breaking the roaster point and ignoring the reservation policy appointed her as a reserved category candidate. In respect of respondent no. 7, allegation made that she had no requisite experience by the cut -off date but she has been included in the panel and given appointment. Like respondent no. 6, similar allegation made against respondent no. 8 that she belonged to general category but appointed as a reserved category though never claimed. According to petitioners, respondent no. 9 was born in a Bhumihar family but subsequently married to a most backward class person, who is a Chandrabanshi Kahar. Thus she has been illegally granted benefit of reservation. So far as respondent no. 10 is concerned, it is stated that she was shown as M.A., B.Ed, in old panel but in the subsequent panel, she has been shown to be M.Ed.