BINA KUMARI Vs. BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Review Petition has been preferred by the above -named petitioner, Bina Kumari against the conjoint order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyaya in C.W.J.C Nos. 4799/1998 and 882/2000.

(2.) THE challenge in both the writ petitions were in respect of appointment to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in Akshaybat College, Mahua in the District of Vaishali. After the order was passed, this Civil Review Petition was submitted before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyaya and it appears that after giving notice to the opposite parties, the matter was heard by His Lordship but then he was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court and no order was passed and as such, the same has again been put up before this Bench and again the matter was heard.

(3.) THE crux of dispute at the very first instance was whether entertaining of the application of Respondent No. 8, Laxmi Prasad against 1989 Advertisement was being legally maintainable against the Advertisement of 1994. Various papers were filed from the side of the Respondent No. 8 to show that although he was not a formal applicant against the latter advertisement but as he fulfilled the requirements of latter advertisement by paying more postal order, his application was rightly entertained. On the other hand, it was the contention of the Petitioner, Bina Kumari that nowhere at any point of time Respondent No. 8, Laxmi Prasad had applied against 1994 Advertisement and by manipulation only he managed to get himself interviewed and selected. There were other grounds also as to how marks were being manipulated at the time of interview, etc. etc. It appears that other grounds regarding the selection process, the learned Single Judge had upheld in favour of Respondent No. 8 in the impugned order but the very genesis and foundation of the grievance of the Petitioner, Bina Kumari was not at all considered by the learned Single Judge as to whether the Respondent No. 8, could be considered as an applicant against the second advertisement of 1994 when as per the advertisement, there were no liberty given regarding consideration of the applications of the candidates against the prior advertisement of 1989.