RAVISHANKARVERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition an order issued vide memo No. 539 dated 6th September, 1993 which is annexure-13 to the writ petition, by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 2).

(2.) The question which falls for consideration in this case is whether the appointment of the petitioner from a panel which has not been approved by the Director, Primary Education is valid or not? The said question arises in the following facts of the case: The petitioner claims to have passed his matriculation examination in 1st Division in the year 1980 and thereafter he took his admission in the Primary Teachers Training College, Nawadah and completed his training in 1984 and got a second division. Then on an advertisement published in the newspaper inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in different government basic schools in the year 1988, the petitioner made his application seeking his appointment against the reserved backward quota. Thereafter the petitioner was interviewed and he appeared before the selection committee on 23rd April, 1989 and the Divisional Selection Committee, Magadh Division, Gaya prepared a panel of selected candidates according to merit. The petitioner contends that his name as successful candidate figured at serial No. 11 in Magadh Division. On the basis of the aforesaid selection process the petitioner was appointed under Memo No. 25, dated 3rd February, 1992 to the post of Assistant Teacher on matriculate trained scale pursuant to a resolution adopted in the Divisional Committee meeting. The said appointment of the petitioner was in Rajkiya Buniadi Vidyalaya, Goasa, Nawadah (hereinafter called the said School) and according to the petitioner the said appointment was made against the vacant post. The petitioner has annexed his appointment letter as Annexure-3 to this writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner immediately joined on 4th February, 1992 and is continuously working as an Assistant teacher in the said School. In the appointment letter which the petitioner has annexed, it has been made clear that such appointment has been given to the petitioner in anticipation of approval of the panel. The petitioner has thereafter stated that even though he was regularly working in the post to which he was appointed and discharged his duties, his salary was not paid. As the salary of the petitioner was not being paid, the Head Master of the said School (Respondent No. 6) wrote several letters to the Director, Primary Education Bihar, Patna, for sending approval of appointment of the petitioner. As on repeated requests and on representation of the petitioner, the said approval was not forthcoming, he filed a writ-petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4034 of 1993 before this Court for securing the approval of his appointment from respondent No. 2. The said writ-petion was disposed of on 6th August, 1993 by a Division Bench of this Court with the following observation:-

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner made a representation which is at Annexure-12 to the writ petition and on the said representation an order was passed by the Director, Primary Education, Patna (respondent No. 2), inter alia, to the effect that the panel from which the petitioner's appointment took place was not approved by the Director, Primary Education of Magadh Division and hence the appointment of the petitioner by the then Regional Deputy Director, Primary Education, Gaya, is irregular and as the recognition of such an irregular appointment cannot be given, no salary can be paid to the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner be not treated as a Government servant from the date of his appointment. The said order has been challenged in this writ-petition by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that no approval by the Director of Primary (Education to the panel in question is required.