SUBHASHCHANDRADARBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ on direction directing the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Elementary School of Godda district.

(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

(3.) The petitioner is holder of a certificate of Upadhyaya granted by Mandar Vidyapith, Bhagalpur, which is said to be equivalent to Matriculation examination A vacancy was advertised on 12-1 -1986 in newspaper Aaj' inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools in Godda district. In the said advertisement, it has been stipulated that a panel for appointment was to be prepared from amongst the trained teachers According to the petitioner, he passed that training examination in 1980 He also applied for the said post, and his certificates, etc. were examined by a Committee. According to the petitioner in terms of item No. 2 of the Government order dated 11th May, 1974 a panel of the trained teachers was to be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the academic and training examination in preferential order. Admittedly, a panel was prepared on 26-9-1987 which contained 527 names. The petitioner has contended that the said panel has not been prepared in terms of the Government order dated 11th May, 1974. The petitioner and others allegedly filed a protest in relation to that panel on 23-10-1987 whereafter a supplementary panel consisting of 70 persons including the names of those who have completed training after the petitioner had been included. The petitioner was admittedly informed that bis name was not included in the panel as the certificate granted to him by Mandar Vidyapith, Bhagalpur, has been declared invalid. The petitioner has contended that the said order is violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has contended that a writ petition was filed in this Court by Ram Kumar Purevey and others being CWJC No. 1358 of 1988, In our opinion, the said decision has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.