RAMJI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment given in different writ-petitions. They involve common questions of law, and for the said reason, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are given for the purpose of disposal of the cases. They are as follows : Prior to 1985, the appointment to the post of Assistant teachers in Primary Schools of State of Bihar were being made on the basis of residents of candidates of particular district. When advertisement was published in the year 1985 for appointment of teachers in different districts, on the basis of residents of candidates of such district, the matter was challenged before this Court. In the case of Anil Kumar v. Chief Secretary (reported in 1987 PLJR 846), a Bench of this Court declared the panels, prepared districtwise, on the basis of a particular district as unconstitutional, but did not disturb the appointments which had already been made in the meantime, in pursuance of the said panels. Subsequently, a number of writ petitions were filed before this Court relating to appointment out of said 1985 panel. In the case of Birendra Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of Bihar and others (reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 18, this Court while relying on the case of Anil Kumar (supra), again declared the panels, prepared on the basis of district as unconstitutional, while so declaring, the appointments which had already been made, in the meantime, they were also set aside. In the meantime, on the basis of decision of Anil Kumar (supra), the State Government issued a circular dated 2nd July, 1989, directing to prepare a combined panel for appointment to the post of teachers. It was ordered that the candidates who were already in the panel but could not be appointed, they are also covered by the said Circular dated 2nd July, 1989. CWJC No. 8595/89 was filed by certain persons for their appointment out of the said panel, which was dismissed, and while so dismissing, the appointment of teachers which had already been made, they were also set aside. Subsequently, other writ petitions were also filed before this Court, which were also dismissed. Against numerous aforesaid judgments, including the judgment given in the case of Birendra Kumar Srivastava & others (supra), special leave petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. A writ petition (civil No. 911/95) was also filed before the Supreme Court for direction on the respondents to appoint the petitioner of the said case to the post of Assistant Teachers out of the said 1985 Panel. In the meantime, in pursuance of earlier decision of this Court, a combined panel was also prepared in the year 1988 and a number of persons were appointed out of the said combined panel. The aforesaid special leave petitions, in which leave was granted, they were heard together along with the writ petition (Civil) No. 911/91 by Hon'ble Supreme Court and judgment was delivered in the case of Sabita Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 62 (SC). The Sabita Prasad's case was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following manner : Writ petition (Civil) No. 911 of 1991 and Civil Appeal No. 3216 of 1991 in which prayer was made for appointment of the petitioners of those cases were dismissed. It was held that mere empanelment does not create any right in favour of the empanelist for being appointed. Other Civil Appeal Nos. 3218/91. 3219/91 and 3220/91, wherein appointments of the appellants earlier set aside by this Court, they were allowed to continue in the service as Assistant Teachers because of concessions given on behalf of the State. Civil Appeal No. 3217 of 1991, preferred by unsuccessful non-appointed persons, who were petitioners of CWJC No 4843 of 1988, they were remitted back to this Court for consideration on the question as to whether any person before those petitioners in the merit list had already been appointed or not. It was ordered to consider such cases and if it was found in case of any one of the petitioners of said CWJC No. 4843 of 1988, that he is/they are senior to the persons who had already been appointed, then to give them appointment in their favour. Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 1991 was allowed on concession and appellants of the said appeal, who had already been appointed, they were allowed to continue as Assistant Teachers. Lastly, Civil Appeal No. 4252 of 1991 filed by some of the unsuccessful writ petitioners of CWJC 3048 of 1988, was allowed on concession that the State will reconsider the cases of all such persons.

(3.) After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra), those who were already appointed out of 1985 panel, but whose service were terminated by High Court's judgment, they were allowed to remain in the services of the State Government as Assistant Teachers. Out of 1988 panel, which was prepared on the basis of the decision given in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), a number of persons were given appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in between the years 1988-1989. Certain more persons, therefore, filed numerous writ petitions, therefrom filed numerous writ petitions before this Court, which were disposed of in one or other manner in between 1993-94. In some cases, specific direction was given to appoint the petitioner of those cases, taking into account that the persons junior to them in the merit list have already been appointed, whereas in some cases, writ petitions were disposed of with simple direction to consider the cases of petitioners. In some of the cases, simpliciter direction was given to respondents to consider the representation of one or other writ petitioners. All those cases were disposed of in between the years 1993-95, in the light of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra). Further, after such direction in one or other case, some appointment have again been made, out of 1985 panel, which was followed by 1988 panel, in between the years 1993 and 1995. It further appears that the direction in the aforesaid manner continued to be given by this Court in one or other manner and the process of appointment followed even in the year 1993. It is sometimes in the beginning of the year 1995, it came to the notice of a Bench of this Court that the appointments were continuing to be made in the aforesaid fashion for years together, out of the panel which was prepared initially in the year 1985, Those process of appointment continued out of one advertisement for about ten years.