STATE OF BIHAR Vs. HRIDYA NAND MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the question of limitation.

(2.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

(3.) THE case has a chequered history and as such it is necessary to state the facts in brief. According 10 to Government policy decision the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School used to be made on the basis of residence of an eligible candidate in particular district and the panel used to be made on that basis. The said policy decision was challenged on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India before this court in CWJC No. 5490 of 1986 (Anil Kumar vs. Chief Secretary to the State Government of Bihar, Patna and others). The Court allowed the writ application and quashed the appointment of Assistant Teacher on districtwise basis holding that the same is unconstitutional. However, this Court did not interfere with the appoinments already made from the said panel. The said judgment is reported in 1987 PLJR 846. The State Government thereafter issued directions and circulars staying the appointment on the basis of panel prepared on districtwise basis and further directed that fresh appointment will be made ignoring the districtwise criteria. Large number of writ applications were filed before this Court by the persons whose names were in the panel prepared on districtwise basis but not appointed. The said writ applications were dismissed by this Court. The matter went before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar & others [reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 62 (SC)] decided the controversy. The Apex Court held that the preparation of districtwise panel is not permissible in law and thereafter orders were passed with regard to different appeals taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each appeal. With regard to appointment in the district of Siwan, (which is relevant in this case as the respondent claims appointment on the basis of panel of Siwan District), four Civil Appeals, being Civil Appeal Nos. 3218, 3219, 3220 and 3217 all of 1991 were filed before the Supreme Court. The first three appeals, namely, 3218, 3219 and 3220 of 1991 were disposed of on the basis of concession made by the State of Bihar that as the appellants of those appeals were appointed upto 2.7.1989 and were continuing in service, they would be retained in service. Civil Appeal No. 3217 of 1991 was remanded by the Apex Court to the High Court to consider that if any of the appellants before the Apex Court are senior to those who. have been appointed and are continuing in service and otherwise qualified in all respects prior to 1991 rules, then the Court will direct the State Government to appoint such persons in relaxation of the age bar.