KANHAIYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ applications have been preferred by the Assistant Teachers of Biology and Mathematics serving in the different high schools in the State of Bihar pursuant to their appointment vide memo no.438 and memo no.439 dated 22.06.2013 respectively. A copy of the consolidated appointment letters have been brought on record as Annexure-11 and 11/1 to the writ applications.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved with Rule 5 and 11 of the "Bihar Nationalized Secondary School Teacher's Special Appointment Rule 2013" (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2013) published vide notification contained in memo no.850 dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure-10 to the writ application) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar. It is their contention that the given paragraphs are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also those are in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education, (1983) AIR(Supreme Court) 1143. The petitioners are seeking quashing of those two paragraphs of the notification as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ applications and upon holding these two Rules of the Rules, 2013 arbitrary and bad in law a further mandamus has been prayed for directing the respondents to grant seniority, salary and all other benefits to the petitioners counting their services from 08.10.1998 and 21.05.1999 as Assistant Teachers of Biology and Mathematics respectively. It is their contention that they have been selected pursuant to the advertisement no.1/88 and 1/95 and therefore they should be treated at par with the other appointees who have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in different subjects in the year 1997. The petitioners claim that the Vidyalaya Seva Board had sent a list of selected candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers of Biology on 08.10.1998 and on the post of Assistant Teachers in Mathematics on 21.05.1999, therefore they are entitled to be treated at par with the appointees from the same advertisement.

(3.) In order to appreciate the case of the petitioners, it would be just and proper to take note of the two Rules of the Rules, 2013 (Annexure-10) which are impugned in the present writ applications. The relevant Rule 5 and 11 read as under:-