KUMUD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 14.6.1994 by which the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna has refused the prayer of the petitioner for her absorption as a lecturer in Ganga Devi Mahila College, Kankarbagh, Patna (hereinafter called the said College). By the said order it was held that the appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7, namely, Smt. Renu Sinha and Smt. Prabha Sahay respectively are adjusted against the two sanctioned posts in the department of Ancient Indian History in the said College.

(2.) CERTAIN relevant facts are noted below : Pursuant to advertisement dated 22.7.1985 published in the daily Searchlight by the said College authorities, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Ancient Indian History in the said College. The said advertisement was published by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the said College. The assertion of the petitioner is that at the time of her application she had B.A. (Hons.) degree in the subject of Ancient Indian History and also M.A. degree in the Ancient Indian History with 67 per cent marks and was eligible to apply for the said post. Pursuant to the said application the petitioner was called for interview on 30.8.1985 and the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee prepared a panel in which the petitioner was at the top of the panel and the Selection Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment. Pursuant to such recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 30.8.1985 the petitioner was appointed by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the said College by appointment letter dated 4.11.1985 to the post of Lecturer in the department of Ancient Indian History and pursuant thereto the petitioner joined the said post. Thereafter the said College was made a constituent unit of Magadh University. The petitioner 's case is that on 23.11.1985 a list of teaching and non -teaching staff of the College employees was prepared and handed over to the University authorities and the name of the petitioner was appearing therein as Lecturer in Ancient Indian History. As against the aforesaid mode and manner of appointment of the petitioner, this Court also notices the mode and manner of appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7.

(3.) ATTENTION of this Court has also been drawn to a panel of candidates dated 6.2.1982 in which the names of respondent nos. 6 and 7 figure as selected candidates but the fact remains that much prior to such selection and prior to such insertion of advertisement respondent nos. 6 and 7 were appointed.