KUMUD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application, the grievance of the petitioners to be that on 4 7 1985 two posts of Lecturers in Ancient Indian History were sanctioned by the State Government for Ganga Devi Mahila College, Kankarbagh which, at the relevant time, was a College affiliated to the Magadh University. Her case is that after the sanction of the said two posts an advertisement was issued by the Secretary of the College for appointment against the said posts. The petitioner being duly qualified applied for the said post and, later, she was also interviewed by the Selection Committee which recommended her case for appointment as first nominee as against the said two posts. It is claimed that on 4 11 198) the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide annexure 3 against the first sanctioned post and she joined. Later, the Government decided to take over different affiliated Colleges, including the College in question. The list of teaching and non teaching employees prepared by then Governing Body of the College was submitted to the University in which the name of the petitioner was also included as a Lecturer in Ancient Indian History.

(2.) IT has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that several other persons working in the same Department since before even when the posts were not sanctioned and who had not even applied in response to the advertisement have been absorbed and continued in the college whereas the petitioner, who, after making due application and selection was appointed, her case was arbitrarily ignored.

(3.) PURSUANT to that order, the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, passed the order contained in Annexue 26, the validity of which has been challenged by amendment petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 9 5 1992. From perusal of the said order it appears that her case had been rejected on two grounds, namely, that in view of the date of appointment of other persons, her position stands below and that the total number of a sanctioned posts available was only two. Thus, according to the Commissioner, she cannot in any view of the matter claim to have been continuing against the posts duly created by the State Government. The other ground which has weighed with the Commissioner appears to be that the appointment of the petitioner has been made in violation of Section 35 as also the provisions contained in Section 57 A of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').