SHAKUNTALA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned notification dated 30-7-1982 contained in Annexure-8 therein the petitioners were not included in the list of approved teachers of Kanya Uchch Vidalaya, Obra. It has been fairly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that he is not seeking any relief against respondents 6 to 8, who have been so appointed under Annexure-4.

(2.) The said institution was founded and started functioning with effect from 23rd January, 1978 and respondents 9 to 10 were the secretary and the President of the said Vidyalaya. Against the vacancy for the post of Assistant Teachers,the petitioner No.1 filed an application and by letter dated 25-7-1980 she was appointed as Assistant teacher and joined the post sometime in August 1980 and since then she has been teaching the students regularly to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. In between the period 3-8-1981 to 24-4-1982 she proceeded for the training course and joined the said Vidyalaya on 26-4-1982. The second petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by letter dated 30th July 1979 and joined the said post sometime in August 1979 and since then she has been teaching the students. The third petitioner as well joined the post of Assistant teacher in the said school in April 1979 pursuant to his appointment in March 79 and since then he has been discharging his duties as an Assistant teacher. The petitioner No. 3 also passed the training course in the year 1982 from the Ranchi University and petitioner No. 2 after getting permission from the Department, completed the training course in the year 1982-83 from the Magadh University, Gaya, and the result was published in the year 1985.

(3.) After granting recognition to the said School by notification dated 30-7-1982, the Government took over the Management and control of the said Vidayalaya and six Assistant teachers were appointed vide the impugned notification contained in Annexure-4 but the name of these petitioners in the list of approved teachers were not included. The petitioners then made a representation to respondent No. 9 as to why and under what circumstances they were not so appointed, although they have been working in the said Vidyalaya since long even before the publication of the said notification.