GEETA KUMARI Vs. SMT.MANJULA SINHA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) THE appellant was respondent no. 5 in the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1565/1999 which has been allowed against her by the judgment and order under appeal dated 27th November, 1999. The writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) had preferred the writ petition for quashing of a part of the memo dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) issued by the Bihar College Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission ') by which the writ petitioner had been placed as the second nominee for the first post of lecturer in the Department of Psychology in Ran Vijay Smarak College, Chas, Bokaro in pursuance to an advertisement of 1989. The writ petitioner claimed that she should have been the first nominee in the recommendation made by the Commission in place of respondent no. 5 (appellant herein) on the sole ground that respondent no. 5 did not have the minimum requisite educational qualification for appointment as a lecturer in terms of the advertisement of 1989. By the order under appeal not only the claim of the writ petitioner that she should be treated as the first nominee for the first post has been accepted but she has also been declared senior to respondent no. 5 as a lecturer in the Department of Psychology in the concerned college. There is no controversy between the parties on the relevant facts and it is an admitted position that on the last date or the closing date for filing application i.e. on 30.1.1990, the appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification in terms of advertisement of 1989. The defence of the appellant as a respondent in the writ petition was based upon a notice published in the newspaper on 6.11.1993, as contained in Annexure -4 to the writ application, whereby the Commission informed the concerned members of the public that all those who were unable to submit their applications pursuant to the advertisement of 1989. by the last date i.e. 30th January, 1990, they could submit their applications in the prescribed form in the office of the Commission by 16.11.1993. The notice further mentioned that all other terms and conditions shall remain the same. According to the appellant, the said notice amounted to a fresh advertisement inviting applications from the eligible applicants till 16.11.1993 and therefore, even those who had applied earlier in terms of the advertisement of 1989 but were ineligible at that time became entitled to be treated as eligible applicants if they had, like appellant, acquired the necessary educational qualification before 16.11.1993.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Writ Court after going through the records of the Commission has come to the conclusion that the appellant had applied only once prior to 30th January, 1990. in terms of the advertisement of 1989. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the notice, contained in Annexure -4, permitted only those who had been unable to submit their applications by 30th January, 1990, therefore, the Commission had indicated that those who had already applied were not required to apply again by the extended date i.e. 16.11.1993. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, other members of the public who may have acquired necessary qualification even up to 16.11.1993 had been invited and permitted to apply by 16.11.1993 and therefore, the notice, contained in Annexure -4, should be treated as a fresh advertisement in respect of the same first post with a rider that those who had already applied need not apply and on such interpretation of Annexure -4 the appellant got a right to be considered against the first post advertised in the year 1989 although she was not having the requisite qualification till 30th January, 1990 but acquired the same before 16.11.1993.