BINA KUMARI Vs. BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in these two cases which have been heard together relates to appointment on the post of lecturer in Hindi in Akshaivat College, Mahua. The contestants are the two petitioners herein, namely, Bina Kumari and Lakshmi Prasad. They figure as respondents in the cases filed by the other of them. For the sake of convenience, herein after, Bina Kumari will be referred to as the petitioner and Lakshmi Prasad as the respondent.

(2.) CWJC No. 4799/98 was filed by the petitioner in effect and substance for a direction upon the concerned respondents to appoint her as lecturer in Hindi on the second post from the panel dated 9.7.97 sent by the Bihar College Service Commission (for short, the Commission). A few days earlier the Commission had sent revised panel in favour of the respondent on 13.6.98. The petitioner challenged the same by amendment. During pendency of the case on 14.10.99 the Commission cancelled the revised panel dated 13.6.98 and restored the earlier one. It was the turn of the respondent to challenge the cancellation in CWJC No. 882/2000.

(3.) THE case of the respondent may be noticed at this stage. The college advertised the post of lecturer in Hindi. He applied and was selected by the selection committee vide appointment letter dated 14.11.89. On 1.12.89 he joined the post. On 30.1.90 the Commission advertised various posts of lecturer in different colleges. The advertisement included one post of lecturer in Hindi in Akshaivat College, Mahua, which had been granted permanent affiliation in the meantime on 10.t.90 - vide advt. no.. 935/89. The respondent applied for the post. In the year 1994 another advertisement was issued by the Commission on 29.8.94 whereby two posts of lecturer in Hindi in the college were advertised. On 4.11.95 call letter was issued to him for interview on 21.11.95. He appeared at the interview on said date. On 9.7.97 the Commission recommended a panel of candidates for appointment in which his name was not there. He came to learn that his case was not considered as his application was misplaced. The respondent represented his case before the Secretary of the Commission who asked him to furnish evidence of his submitting the application. He produced receipt to the effect that his application along with postal order of Rs. 10/ - had been received in the office of the Commission. On 9.6.98 the Secretary after scrutiny came to the conclusion that the grievance of the respondent was genuine, and accordingly, asked him to submit second/duplicate application within three days. He accordingly submitted duplicate application on 13.6.98. On the same day, after screening the Commission amending the earlier panel dated 9.7.97 recommended the name of the respondent as first nominee for appointment against the second post. Since he was already working in the college from before on the same very post since 1989, on receipt of the said recommendation the Governing Body of the College in its meeting dated 6.8.98 confirmed the appointment on the post. However, after CWJC No. 4799/98 was filed by the petitioner wherein the Commission was directed to file counter affidavit, with a view to save their skin the Commission arbitrarily cancelled the revised recommendation dated 13.6.98 on 14.10.99. The claim of the respondent in sum and substance, inter alia, is that he was not recommended earlier because his application was reportedly missing which was not the fault of the respondent, and therefore, he cannot be made to suffer.