KAVITA KUMARI KANDHW Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the matter in all these writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals relates to appointment of Teachers from amongst the members of Backward Class, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, arising out of a common advertisement and common question of law being involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE main questions, involved in these cases, are:

(3.) MOST of the writ petitioners, including private respondents of L.P.A. Nos. 722 of 2004 and 570 of 2005 having not been provided with the letters of appointment, preferred the writ petitions for a direction on the respondents to consider their cases for appointment as Teachers against the posts, reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Categories. W.P.(S) No. 2423 of 2004, filed by Mohammad Muslim and Ram Pravesh Singh, and W.P.(S) No. 1448 of 2005, filed by Lalita Kumari and Janak Deo Kumar, having been allowed by judgment dated 6th May, 2004 and 4th April, 2005 respectively, L.P.A.Nos. 722 of 2004 and 570 of 2005 have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the judgments aforesaid. So far as petitioner Arvind Kumar Prabhat of W.P.(S) No. 4363 of 2004 and appellant Sanju Kumari of L.P.A.No. 457 of 2004 are concerned, after the written competitive test, they having been declared successful, letters of appointment were issued in their favour, pursuant to which they joined the services of the State of Jharkhand. Later on, it having been found that Arvind Kumar Prabhat is not a member of Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand but that of the State of Bihar (District -Chapra) and Sanju Kumari having been found to be a member of Backward Class of the State of Bihar (District -Nawadah), their services have been terminated by two impugned letters, both dated 17th February, 2004. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2587 of 2004, preferred by Sanju Kumari, having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, she has preferred L.P.A.No. 457 of 2004 against the said judgment.