MAYA SABA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this writ application, the petitioners, who are 79 in number, have challenged the order dated 21-10-1991 passed by the respondent-Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, Human Resources and Development Department, Paina, whereby he has held that the petitioners have not been vaildly appointed as assistant teachers and further that the petitioners, in fact, have not actually worked in the different schools pursuant to the letters of appointment issued to them. A copy of the said order bas been made Annexure-6 to this writ application. The further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to grant the same and similar benefits as have been given to the similarly situate persons, namely, writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1 of 1992 (R), which was disposed of on 8th December, 1993, and the Special leave Petition filed against the said judgment by the respondent-State was dismissed by the Apex Court on 30th August, 1994(Annexnre-l), Before I consider the contentions of the respective parties, it is necessary to state some relevant facts first.

(2.) In pursuance of the advertisement, dated 11-9-1995 issued by the respondent District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, for filing up 514 vacant posts of assistant teachers in the different Primary and Middle Schools in the then District at Dhanbad, the petitioners and others applied and were interviewed by the Selection Committee and the District Establishment Committee, prepared a penel of 515 teachers in different categories and the said penel was sent to the respondent Regional Denuty Director of Education North Chotanagpur Division Hazaribagh, for his approval, which was approved vide his letter, dated 8-8-1986, which also bore the signatures of the respondents District Superintendent of Education, District Education Officer Deputy Development Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, a copy of which has been made Annexure-1 to the said writ application, namely, C.W.J.C. No 1 of 1992. The names of the petitioners were mentioned in the said approved penel. In spite of the penel of 414 trained teachers having been prepared and approved by the competent authority, the said posts were not filled up. On 1-12-1986. a meeting was held under the, Chairmanship of the ' Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, wherein the respondents including three Members of the Bihar legislative Assembly passed a resolution to the effect that the last several years, a large number of posts of the Primary and Middle School Teachers were lying vacant, students were suffering and also causing, hindrance to the prospects of appointment to the educated persons and, as such, those posts should be filed up immediately. A copy of the said resolution was made Annexure-2 to the aforesaid writ application filed by the similarly situated teachers, namely, petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1 of 1992. The District Establishment Committee was competent to fill up the posts of assistant teachers and the appointment letters were to be issued under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, who was the Secretary of the Establishment Committee. It was, however, provided through a notification, dated 7-6-1984 that before issuing the appointment letters, the respondents Deputy Development Commissioner would counter-sign the said appointment letters. The said notification, dated was also made Annexure-5 to the aforesaid writ application filed by a batch of similarly situate person. However, the aforesaid notification was subsequently amended by another notification, dated 1-11-1985, whereby the provision for taking counter-signature of the Deputy Development Commissioner was withdrawn in certain case. The respondent-Director, Primary Education-cum-Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, respondent No. 3, directed all the District Education Officers in the State to fix a date for issue of appointment letters to the teachers, who have been empanneled in the approved list. Accordingly, the candidates of Chotanagpuf Division including the petitioners, who belonged to the then district of Dhanbad. by a general notice, were directed to appear on 28-5-1988 at 9 A.M. in the premises of the Zila School. The said general notice, dated 28-5-1988 has been made Annexure-2 to this writ application. Altogether 175 persons including the present petitioners wera appointed by an Office Order No. 101-C Dated 28-5-1988, and were posted in the different area office of the respective District Education Officer as the schools were elesed at the relevant point of time for summar vacation. A copy of the said appointment letter has been made Annexure-3 to this writ application. Subsequently, by order, dated 2-9-1988, the petitioners and others were posted in the different primary schools, and. accordingly, they joined their duties in the different primary schools in the pay-scale of matric trained teachers i.e Rs. 480-860. A copy each of the said order has been made Annexure-4 to 4/C, to this writ application. Surprisingly enough, the respondent Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled the appointments of the petitioners and others by his order, dated 3-11-1988 on the ground that his counter- signature was not obtained (Annexure-5) Some of the teachers including some of the petitioners filed a writ application being C.WJ.C. No. 2728 of 1988 (R) challenging the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, dated 3-11-1988, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application, which was dismissed in limine at the admission stage. Thereafter, the petitioners of the aforesoid writ application filed two separate special leave petitions before the Apex Court bearing S l P. (Civil) Nos. 9099 and 15576 of 1989. The Apex Court by order, dated 13-11-1990 set aside the order of cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners and others on the ground that the said order of cancellation was passed without complying with the rule" of natural justice and directed the Secretary (Education), Government of Bihar or any person nominated by him to pass a reasoned order afresh, after hearing the petitioners, on the question as to whether they were validly appointed as assistant teacher. It was further directed that if the petitioners and others had joined their respective schools where they had been posted and had worked as such, then they were entitled to the salary for such period. Pursuant to the direction aforesaid, the Special Secretary, who was nominated by the Secretary (Education) issued notice to the prtitioners and others to appear before him along with the relevant papers for hearing on two points, firstly, whether their appointments made by the District Superintendent of Education were valid and, secondly, whether pursuant to their appointments, they had joined their respective schools on posting and if so, the period during which they had worked Ultimately, the Special Secretary has held by his order, dated 3-10-1991, that the petitioners and others were not validly appointed as assistant teachers and also that had not joined and worked in their respective school, as they had alleged. A copy of the said order has been made Annexure-6 to this writ application. The said order of the Special Secretary, dated 3-10-1991, as contained in Annexure-6, was challenged by 69 teachers, which was the subject-matter of consideration before this Court in the aforesaid writ application, as stated above. The said writ application, namely, C.W.J.C. No 1 1992 (R) was disposed of by the order, dated 8 12-1993, whereby the said writ application was allowed and the order, dated 3-10-1991 (Annexure-6) was quashed and it was held that the writ petitioners were duly and validly appointed and they were entitled to be counted the period from 4-7-1988 onwards i.e. the date of their joining the post for the purposes of seniority, fixation of pay-scale and pensionary benefit etc. A copy of the aforesaid judgment has been made Annexure-7 of this writ application.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6, namely, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, whereform it appears that the facts stated heieinebove have not been dented by respondent-District Superintendent of Education in his counter-affidavit. What has been stated in the counter-affidavit, is that the order of termination of their service were passed in the year, {9H1, which, cannot be challenged in the year, 1995. It is further stated that pursuant to the decision of the State Government, all the existing vacancies upto 1990 were filed up. It is further stated that Since tbe petitioners were not the petitioners in the aforesaid writ application, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 1 of 1992, and hence, they cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application. l It is further stated that all the existing vacancies posts are to be filled up with the candidates belonging to the reserved categories according to the Government policies and since the petitioners belong to the general categories, they cannot be appointed against the existing vacancies of the district in question It was also stated that the panel prepared in the year, 1987 was for the unified districts of Dhanbad and Bokaro, but the respondent-District Superintendent of Education has expressed his inability in his counter-affidavit to make any statement about the existing vacancies of the newly created district of Bokaro It is also stated that there is no vacant post available in the district of Dhanbad and all the existing posts after the year. 1990, shall have to be filled up strictly in accordance with the reservation policy of the State Government and the procedure prescribed for such appointments. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not working after 3-11-1988 i.e. the date of cancellation of their appointments, and, as such, they cannot be allowed to challenge the order passed by the respondent Special Secretary (Education). On the aforesaid averments, it is submitted that the petitioners ate not entitled to any relief sought for in terms of the prayer made in the instant writ petition or, in any way, they are not also entitled to get the benefit out of the judgment and order passed by this Court in relation to 69 persons, who were petitioners therein.