DEEPA BARIAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE petitioner is a first Class Science graduate in Chemistr from Patna University and then she obtained also a first class degree of M. Sc from the said University. She was appointed on 8th April, 1986 as a Lecturer in the department of Chemistry in Rajkiya Mahila mahavidyalaya, Gardanibagh, Patna. The said College is admittedly a Government college. The petitioner was appointed as as lecturer in the department of Chemistry or the basis of daily wages at the rate of Rs. 25/- per lecture and it was also stipulated in the order of appointment that the total salary will not excend Rs. 1250/-in a month.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she has been continuing on that post on such a meagre amount against a sanctioned post which fell vacant as one Smt. Sabita Banerjee who was initially appointed on the said sanctioned post and started absenting herself and was not available for teaching.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that while she was continuing on that post an order was purportedly passed on 5th july, 1991 asking the petitioner not to take classes. Such order was issued on 5th July, 1991, but the same was again cancelled by respondent no. 4, the Principal of the College on communication of the order of this hon'ble the Court. The petitioner's case is that she is still continuing on the said post on the basis of the appointment given to her on 8th April, 1986. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner is a fully qualified person having a degree of First Class in both B. Sc. and M. Sc. and carrying on research and she was also appointed against a sanctioned post. The further case of the petitioner is that from the order of the recommendation issued by the Principal of the said College, it will appear that she is carrying the entire duty of the department of Chemistry of the said College and she is carrying on an onerous duty on a meagre sum of Rs. 1250/- per month. The Principal of the institution therefore recommended that her services should be regularised and her remuneration should be enhanced. Copy of such recommendation of the Principal of the college on the petitioner's representation dated 12th September, 1994 is filed along with the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that at the time of her appointment apart from the petitioner several other candidates were also considered for the said posts by the appropriate authority, and on consideration of those candidates the petitioner has been appointed as the most meritorious candidate for the post in question.