BINOD KUMAR TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been heard after notice to the advocates at large inviting them to give particulars of the cases, which according to them are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sabita Prasad and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar,1994 1 PLJR(SC) 62 and to participate in the hearing making it clear that the cases will be heard as representative cases on the point. The facts of the cases are not the same. However, I propose to dispose of the same on a common point. As such, it is not necessary to notice the facts of the individual cases.

(2.) The writ petitions relate to appointment of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools in the State. The genesis of the dispute has been noticed in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. I need not refer to the same over and again in this order. Suffice it to say that following the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar V/s. Chief Secretary,1988 PLJR 846 which held that no appointment can be made from the panel prepared on the basis of residence in a particular district, the State Government issued certain instructions by letter dated July, 2, 1989 to treat the panels prepared on the basis of residence as cancelled and to take steps for preparation of fresh panels. Many of the non-appointed persons from the aforesaid panels filed writ petitions in this Court, three of them have been noticed in the judgment of the Supreme Court aforesaid being C.W.J.C. No. 3048 of 1988, C.W.J.C. No. 4843 of 1988 and C.W.J.C. No. 6595 of 1989. C.W.J.C. No. 3048 of 1988 was filed by 49 non-appointed persons belonging to Nalanda district. The writ petition was dismissed in the light of the judgment in the case of Anil Kumar but with an observation to consider their cases on priority basis. The said unsuccessful writ Petitioners preferred Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court in two batches. While the S.L.P. on behalf of 16 of them was summarily dismissed, the S.L.R on behalf of the rest 33, giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 4254 of 1991, was ultimately allowed in part. I shall refer to the details of the order passed in the said appeal soon hereinafter.

(3.) The aforementioned appeals and the writ petition were disposed of by the common judgment, referred to as Sabita Prasad's case, in the following manner: