NUTAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 3011 of 1996 (R) seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her on the post of matric trained teacher in any primary school in the district of Dhanbad and not to disqualify her on the ground of her residence being outside the district of Dhanbad, This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 7.10.1996 following the earlier decision of this Court dated 30.9.1996 passed in the case of Dinesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 1086/96 (R). Being aggrieved thereby she filed this appeal under Clauses 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) In the State of Bihar district -wise panels were prepared for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools on the basis of the residence of the candidates in the particular district. A candidate, who did not belong to the district for which the panel was prepared, was excluded from consideration. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1987 PLJR 846, has declared such panel to be unconstitutional without disturbing the appointment already made. This Court also directed the State not to make any further appointment from such panels. The said decision has become final. The Government of Bihar, accordingly, issued an order dated 2.7.1989 prohibiting the appointment of any more teachers from such panels and directed for fresh selection after due advertisement. As the candidates were not appointed from the panels prepared district -wise in view of the above order of the Government, the matter was challenged in this Court by filing writ petition, which were dismissed. The decision of this Court was challenged before the Apex Court, whose decision is reported in Sabita Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 (1) PLJR 62 (SC).

(3.) The Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad and Ors. (supra), held that the number of persons included in the panels were neither related to the existing vacancies nor even to the anticipated vacancies of the near future and as such, such a panel did not create any vested/legal right on the candidates whose names were included therein. But the Apex Court, in view of the concession made by the learned Govt. counsel, did not disturb the appointments already made. As regard the teachers belonging to Nalanda District, the Court, on the basis of concession made by the learned Counsel of the State of Bihar, directed for consideration of their cases for appointment as primary schools teachers, if the persons figuring below them in the panel have been appointed.