BINDESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the 49 petitioners had applied for being appointed an Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools in the District of Nalanda in response to an advertisement put out by the authorities concerned in October, 1976 and thereafter they were put in the panel which was prepared for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in the District of Nalanda for the period 1976 to 1983. The grievance of the petitioners is that while they have been waiting all this while in 1988 some persons including those who were below in the panel were appointed from this panel but the petitioners were left out. The prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other direction of like nature directing the state and the authorities of the Education Department, now department of Human Resources Development, for appointing the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in the vacancies which exist in this category.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state and the authorities of the Education Department. The fact that all the petitioters are included in the panel in question is not denied. It is really strange that these petitioners have been kept waiting for almost 14 years by now and no relief has been given to them. This court took a serious note of the situation and by its order dated 23-11-1989 directed the respondents to indicate by what time the consideration by the different Establishment Committees regarding the appointment of these petitioners is likely to be completed and by what time the appointments if any were to be made. No further counter affidavit in this regard has been filed by the respondents. The larned counsel appearing on behalf of the State however, submitted that under the advertisement in question applications were invited from only those persons who are residents of Nalanda district and thus the panel in which the petitioners are included is on district basis. He has pointed out that a similar matter regarding appointment on the basis of districtwise panel had come up before this court and it was held that preparing panel for appointment district basis is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (Vide Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR page 846). Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of this decision and in view of the fact that appointment from a panel prepared on districtwise basis is unconstitutional, the State is not in a position to make appointment from the panel in question and it is on that account that the respondents have not been able to give any undertaking regarding appointment of petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid panel. He has, however, stated that the Director (Primary Education) Cum-Joint Secretary, Human Respurces Development' Department, Bihar, Patna under letter No 7/Mu/35/88-3857 dated 20th December, 1989 has sent instruction to the effect that as and when any advertismet is made and a panel is prepared then the case of the petitioners will be considered and if need be the age bar will be condoned. In this connection he has read out clause (c) of the second paragraph of the aforesaid letter which is as follows : -

(3.) As I have already mentioned above it is really unfortunate that the petitioners have been kept waiting for such a long time due to in action and total apathy on the part of the authorities concerned. It is often said that the administration now a days is engulfed in red-tapism but I presume there is a limit even to that. The present case goes to show that the red-tapsim bad almost paralysed the administration otherwise what explanation is there for the fact that no remedial action has yet been taksn in respect of a panel prepared in 1976. This inaction for fourteen years has resulted in wasting of the preceous years of their young life and of similarly situated other Youths. It is hoped the opposite parties will take urgent steps for advertising for appointment to the post of primary teacher in the vacancies that exists at present.