SHATRUGHAN SHARAN DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BIHAR Intermediate Education Council issued advertisement published in the daily Newspaper &aposAaj&apos in its issue dated 7.8.1995 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Stenographers and 30 posts of Typists besides other posts. According to the advertisement, appointment was to be made, after the sanction of the posts by the State Government. Petitioners, in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, offered their candidature. The Bihar State Intermediate Education Council, hereinafter referred to as the &aposCouncil&apos, held written test and interview for preparing a panel for appointment and in fact, a panel was prepared but no appointment was made. Petitioners who had offered their candidature for the post of Stenographers and Typists, filed C.W.J.C. No. 3212 of 2001 (Shatrughan Sharan Das and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents to consider their case for appointment to the posts of Stenographers and Typists. A learned Single Judge of this court, by order dated 18.7.2001 (Annexure - 2), allowed the writ application with the following direction : "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent - Council and its officials are directed to complete the process of appointment for the aforesaid vacant posts of Typist and Stenographer, on the basis of panel/select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement contained in Annexure -1. Such exercise should be completed expeditiously and without any further delay, preferably within two months." While doing so, this court observed as follows : The vacancies in the post of Stenographers has not been disputed and from the discussions made above it is found that there are vacancies not less than 30 even in the sanctioned post of Typist."

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the Council preferred L.P.A. No. 892 of 2001 (Bihar Intermediate Education Council and another V/s. Shatrughan Sharan Das & Ors.). A Division Bench of this court, by order dated 29.1.2002 (Annexure -3), after observing that even in a case in which vacancies are notified persons whose name find place in the merit list do not acquire a indefeasible right of appointment, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. While doing so, it has further observed as follows : "The Council has not brought before the court any material to show that actually there is no need of the Council to make further appointment at the present. This matter has to be considered by the Council and then a final decision has to be taken as to whether the existing vacancies of Typist and Stenographer have to be filled up or not."

(3.) PETITIONERS have averred that a large number of persons have been appointed in the Council on daily wages and although by communication dated 2.12.2002 (Annexure -4) of the State Government, the Council was directed to cancel such illegal appointments and to make appointment on the duly sanctioned posts, still petitioners whose names figure in the merit list, have not been appointed, petitioners have further averred that for the budget of 2002 - 2003, expenditure is shown against the created sanctioned post of Typist and stenographers but, in fact, no person is working against those posts. Petitioners have also averred that in one hand, they are not being appointed although their names find place in the merit list but one Gopal Prasad whose name also finds place in the merit list, has been appointed.