BINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ applications involve common issue based on common facts and circumstances and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order. For the purpose of the present order, the facts have been taken from the pleadings of CWJC No. 395 of 2011. The petitioners, in the present writ applications seek a direction to the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), Patna to appoint them on the posts of Assistant, which were advertised vide an advertisement dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure-4). By the said advertisement, applications were invited from the persons who retired as Section Officers/Assistants. The appointment, pursuant to the said advertisement, was to be made on contract basis for the period of 11 months on payment of maximum amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The petitioners further seek a declaration from the court that the said advertisement dated 6.11.2009 was issued mala fide with sole aim to frustrate the claims of the petitioners and others, who had applied earlier in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.9.1989, and were finally selected. The petitioners have further prayed for restraining the respondents from appointing the retired persons on contract basis in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 06.11.2009.

(2.) For the benefit of quick reference the relief prayed for in writ petition in paragraph 1 is being quoted hereinbelow:--

(3.) I will deal with the facts leading to institution of the present writ applications later, which are relevant for disposal of the present batch of writ applications. At the outset, however, I think it apt to point out that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board stating in paragraph 4 that due to compelling circumstances, for disposal of the certain urgent work in the Board, the advertisement was published to engage 32 retired persons on contract basis but the said urgent work of the relevant period was completed even without engagement of any person on the basis of the said advertisement. It has specifically been stated that the engagement pursuant to the said advertisement was, thus, not done. In my opinion, therefore, the reliefs prayed for in paragraphs 1 (A)(i) and 1 (A)(iii) of the writ petition have become infructuous. This is not in dispute that the advertisement dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure-4), which is the very foundation and the reason for filing of the present writ applications, has not been acted upon nor it is going to be acted upon in future, in view of the stand of the Board in counter affidavit.