MUKTI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the years 1986/87/88 services of a large number of people working in the Collectorate, Gopalganj, had been dispensed with on the ground that appointments of those persons were illegal.

(2.) IN the year 1988 a person approached this Court in a writ petition reg -istered as CWJC No. 250 of 1988. The said writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court, when by the order dated 15th January, 1988, the Court noticing that the appointment of the petitioner in the said writ petition, being an ad hoc appointment on a post of teacher, held that there is no scope of interference. The Court, however, felt that vacant posts should be supplied and for that matter directed steps to the taken including putting up an advertisement. The Court observed that the Kailash Bihari Thakur Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation State may consider the desirability of relaxing age limit of the petitioner in the said writ petition if he responds to the advertisement. The Court granted liberty to the State to appoint ad hoc teachers for the period it would take time to complete the selection process, but made it explicitIy clear that such appointment shall not give any advantage in the matter of selection, however, the experience gained in the appointment continuously held by such ad hoc teachers shall be taken note of.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT thereto an advertisement was published which was responded by the petitioners in the writ petitions registered as CWJC Nos. 693 of 1988, 4395 of 1986 and 8619 of 1988. The said petitioners thereupon filed three writ petitions registered as CWJC Nos. 387 of 1999, 4998 of 1999 and 602 of 1999 challenging the selection of the candidates pursuant to the said advertisement and refusal to select the petitioners in the said writ petitions. The learned single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal dealt with by the said three writ petitions and thereby refused to interfere, but directed the authorities concerned to verify the marks and certificates of selected candidates. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeals have been filed and since the appellants have challenged the self -same judgment and order we have decided to deal all the three appeals by this common judgment.