Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 545 (PAT)

Nutan Jha v. State Of Bihar

1998-08-05

A.K.PRASAD, R.A.SHARMA

body1998
Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 3011 of 1996 (R) seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her on the post of matric trained teacher in any primary school in the district of Dhanbad and not to disqualify her on the ground of her residence being outside the district of Dhanbad, This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 7.10.1996 following the earlier decision of this Court dated 30.9.1996 passed in the case of Dinesh Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 1086/96 (R). Being aggrieved thereby she filed this appeal under Clauses 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. In the State of Bihar district-wise panels were prepared for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools on the basis of the residence of the candidates in the particular district. A candidate, who did not belong to the district for which the panel was prepared, was excluded from consideration. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1987 PLJR 846, has declared such panel to be unconstitutional without disturbing the appointment already made. This Court also directed the State not to make any further appointment from such panels. The said decision has become final. The Government of Bihar, accordingly, issued an order dated 2.7.1989 prohibiting the appointment of any more teachers from such panels and directed for fresh selection after due advertisement. As the candidates were not appointed from the panels prepared district-wise in view of the above order of the Government, the matter was challenged in this Court by filing writ petition, which were dismissed. The decision of this Court was challenged before the Apex Court, whose decision is reported in Sabita Prasad and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 (1) PLJR 62 (SC). 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad and Ors. (supra), held that the number of persons included in the panels were neither related to the existing vacancies nor even to the anticipated vacancies of the near future and as such, such a panel did not create any vested/legal right on the candidates whose names were included therein. But the Apex Court, in view of the concession made by the learned Govt. counsel, did not disturb the appointments already made. But the Apex Court, in view of the concession made by the learned Govt. counsel, did not disturb the appointments already made. As regard the teachers belonging to Nalanda District, the Court, on the basis of concession made by the learned Counsel of the State of Bihar, directed for consideration of their cases for appointment as primary schools teachers, if the persons figuring below them in the panel have been appointed. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1995) 2 PLJR 594, has issued similar direction for consideration of the claim of the petitioners therein for appointment as primary school teachers since the persons below them in the panel have already been appointed. 5. The same dispute again came up before a Division Bench of this Court in Rawji Tiwary and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and B.C.C.L Ors. 1996 (1) All PLR 273. This Court after considering the previous history of the litigation and also the relevant case law in this regard, held that no direction can be issued by this Court to the Govt. for making further appointment from the panel prepared district-wise. The claim of the petitioners therein was also rejected on the ground of delay and laches. As regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad and Ors. (supra), this Court held that the orders/directions were issued by the Apex Court on the basis of concession made by the learned Counsel for the Govt. of Bihar, and, therefore, similar direction like one issued by the Apex Court, as regard the teachers of Nalanda district contained in paragraph No. 34 of the Apex Court judgment, cannot be issued. 6. In the instant case the panel was prepared in 1987 The petitioner-appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 3011 of 1996 (R) on 7.10.1996 after about ten years from the date of preparation of the panel. In paragraph No. 5 of this appeal, the appellant has stated that she was not selected and was not issued appointment letter because she did not belong to the district of Dhanbad. If that is so, she should have challenged the panel and non-issuance of letter of appointment to her in 1987 or 1988. It open to her to challenge now that panel and to seek direction for her appointment. If that is so, she should have challenged the panel and non-issuance of letter of appointment to her in 1987 or 1988. It open to her to challenge now that panel and to seek direction for her appointment. She is guilty of excessive delay and laches. 7. That apart, such panels have already been declared unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumars case (supra), in 1987. After such a declaration, the question of issuing of direction for appointment of any person from panel does not arise. The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. -- , has laid down that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to implement an invalid panel of selected candidates. 8. For the reasons given above, the learned Single Judge was fully justified to dismiss the appellants writ petition. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.