UPENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) It has to be noted that as the aforementioned prayer was quite vague and the persons who were likely to be affected by grant of such relief were not made party to the writ application, this Court by an order dated 24.3.1999 had given liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to make some of the appointed persons as party respondent to this writ application. Thus, apart from respondent no.3 the petitioner had also impleaded two other persons who were made respondents no. 4 and 5 to this writ application and the notices were issued to all of them. As a matter of fact while doing so this Court had also reviewed the scope of the writ application in the order dated 10.8.2010, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, had basically concentrated on the aspect that when the Bihar University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission had advertised the post of Lecturer for different Universities, it had never contemplated to also consider the cases of such persons who were not holder of the degree of Master in Arts in Sanskrit and to that extent he was quite specific that the holder of the qualification of Acharya from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University could not be treated to be qualified for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. His further line of attack as against the recommendation and appointment of respondents no. 3 to 5 was that since all the three of them were appointed on the basis of Acharya degree their appointment due to lack of prescribed qualification must be held to be bad and thus, fit to be set aside. Mr. Prakash in order to support himself had referred to a resolution of the Education . Department dated 29.3.1963 which according to him was a direct answer to Acharya qualification. According to him, the said resolution reading as follows: