NEELA KUMARI @ NEELA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BOTH the writ applications since involve common question of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

(3.) IT is precisely contended by Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were selected pursuant to an advertisement for the posts of A.N.M. and finally a panel was prepared in the year 1995 including the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons whose names have been referred in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit to C.W.J.C. 9049 of 2001, however, were appointed in the year 1998, but the petitioners were not appointed and consequently thereof they approached this Court by these writ applications. It is further contended that according to the decisions of this Court in several writ applications, cases of the candidates who were selected prior to June, 1996 would be governed by the old provision and since the petitioners are governed under the panel of 1995 much prior to the cut -off date i.e. June, 1996 their cases could have been considered for appointment alongwith other candidates who have already been appointed, as referred to above.