STATE OF BIHAR Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned and the application (flag - 'C ') is allowed.

(3.) AN advertisement was made for appointment to the post of Science Teachers, among others, in the District of Santhal Pargana in the year 1981. On 22.5.1982, the writ petitioners were appointed but soon thereafter, on 15.12.1982, their services were terminated by a general order. C.W.J.C. No. 147/83 was filed. The order of termination was quashed but with liberty to pass fresh order after issuing show cause notice. The services of the petitioners and others were again terminated after show cause notice on 30.4.1987. A number of writ petitions including C.W.J.C. No. 227/88 were filed. By judgment and order dated 11.8.1989, direction was issued to the Department to fill up the vacancies by making fresh appointment. The judgement was challenged by the aggrieved persons in the Supreme Court. One batch of Special Leave petitions (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11699/1990 and analogous) was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 7.2.1991. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the directions issued by this Court for making fresh selection. It however, clarified that in considering the suitability of the candidates, the rules which were in force at the time the teachers were recruitted should be taken into account and no disqualification should be imposed on the basis of any altered rule. The State was given opportunity to consider the claim of teachers who came after the altered rules came in force. The bar of age was also relaxed. The court further observed that "those of the Teachers who have served in the past but there has been a break in service on account of termination shall have the credit of past service both in regard to the payment of salary as also seniority and other service benefits". The S.L.Ps. preferred by the writ petitioners (S.L.R (C) Nos. 15174 -76 of 1990) were disposed of on 12.8.1991, following the aforesaid order in S.L.R (Civil) Ho. 11699/90. It would be useful to quote the order as hereunder: