AJAY KANT JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Habib, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.J. Rahman, learned J.C. to the J.P. II for the State -respondents. Although the State of Jharkhand has not been made a party, but since the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad is the respondent No. 3 Mr. M.J. Rahman submits that he has necessary instructions to appear in this case.

(2.) THE facts pleaded in this writ petition paints a somewhat dismal picture in relation to the status to which the petitioner has been subjected. He was empanelled in the year 1986. but he was not given employment only because he did not belong to the district of Dhanbad. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the criteria that people of a particular district should only be appointed has been hit by a number of judgments being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because it discriminates the residents of other districts without any rationale and these judgments are reported in 1987 PLJR -846, Anil Kumar V/s. State of Bihar; 1990 PLJR 226, Priti Biswas V/s. State of Bihar; and (1991) 1 PLJR 33, Devanand Roy V/s. State of Bihar.

(3.) IT further appears that even after the aforementioned order, the respondents chose not to appoint the petitioner. This compelled him to file a contempt application which was registered as MJC No. 177 of 1990 (R). It is, thereafter, that the petitioner seems to have been appointed on 26.3.1991. but when his seniority list was prepared his seniority was given from the actual date of appointment.