KRISHNA BIHARI TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE Note: Service law - Appointment--Assistant teachers in Primary School-- Eligibility of--Appellants empanelled for appointment on the basis of advertisement issued in 1985 but not appointed--One of the conditions for eligibility that applicant must be resident of the said district--Found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution--Appellants filing petitions in the year 1994 i.e. after about nine years--If the claim of the appellants is allowed it. would be amount to depriving other persons of the opportunity of appointment who become eligible for appointment in the intervening period--Held, no relief could be granted to the appellants as it had become old and stale. R.N. Prasad, J. These appeals were heard on different dates but in all these appeals similar questions are involved. Thus they are being disposed of by common judgment and order.

(2.) THESE appeals arise out of judgment and order passed in different writ petitions. THESE appeals relate to the appointment on the post of Asst. Teachers in primary schools. The appellants were empanelled for appointment on the basis of advertisement issued in the year 1985 but they were not appointed. They filed writ petitions the High Court for issue of direction for their appointment as they were empanelled but their claim was rejected and the writ petitions were dismissed. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order passed in the writ petitions in these Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) C.W.J.C. No. 4843/88 was filed by the non-appointed persons belonging to Siwan district. The writ petition was dismissed and the appointments already made from the panel after impleading some of the appointees in representative capacity were quashed in the light of the judgment in the case of Anil Kumar (supra). The aforesaid judgment gave rise to two sets of appeals before the Supreme Court, one at the instance of non-appointed persons being Civil Appeal No. 3217/91 and another by the persons, who were appointed but their appointments were quashed, being Civil Appeal Nos. 3218, 3219 and 3220 of 1991. Civil Appeal No. 3217/91, which was referred by non-appointed writ petitioners, was remitted to this Court for considering the question of their seniority and Civil Appeal No. 3218, 3219 and 3220 of 1991, which were preferred by those whose appointments were quashed but were continuing in service by virtue of stay order passed by the Supreme Court, were allowed as they were appointed prior to 2-7-1989, the date on which the State Government issued letter directing to treat the panel prepared on the basis of residence in the particular district as cancelled.