MD QUASIM ALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1988 on behalf of 55 persons who were aggrieved by the cancellation of their appointments as teachers in the Government Primary Schools in the district of Dumka. During the past ten years while this writ petition remained pending in this Court a majority of the petitioners were absorbed in service on the basis of directions given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 227/88 and the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11699/90 and analogous cases. Such of the petitioners who were absorbed in service during the pendency of this writ petition obviously do not wish to press this case any further. A few of the petitioners, however, failed to be absorbed on certain grounds and this writ petition now subsists only in so far as they are concerned.

(2.) Mr. Bibhuti Pandey, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners 5, 6, 18, 23, 26, 28, 39, 41, 53 and 55 were not absorbed in service on the ground that they were over age; petitioner 24 was refused absorption on the ground that he was under age and petitioners 9 and 17 failed to be absorbed for the alleged reason that they did not make any application against advertisement issued in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Pandey stated that this writ petition now subsists only in respect of the aforesaid petitioners and pressed this case only on their behalf.

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that none of the concerned petitioners, was communicated the reason(s) for his non -absorption in service and what is stated by Mr. Pandey on their behalf has been gathered from affidavits and rejoinders filed on behalf of the respondent authorities in a number of contempt cases arising from connected matters. Reliance in this regard is placed on a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the authorities in M.J.C. No. 1531/93. The aforesaid Supplementary affidavit along with its Annexures has been brought on record of this case as Annexure -29 to the amendment petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. From a list appended to Annexure 29 it appears that the claim of the petitioners 53, 5, 6, 41, 28, 23, 18, 39 and 26 was rejected on the ground that they had crossed the age limit.