Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 728 (PAT)

Manju Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-21

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner seeks directions upon the respondents to appoint her on the post of Assistant Teacher in any of the Primary/ Middle School in the district of Siwan pursuant to the panel prepared in the year 1988. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner since was a successful candidate, her name was included in the panel for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the District of Siwan. It is further submitted that some of the juniors to the petitioner were appointed even in the year 2001, but the case of the petitioner till date has not been considered. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner was included in the panel of Siwan even when the petitioner had given a declaration that she belongs to the district of Saran, but for the reasons best known to the authorities till date she has not been appointed. 4. Counsel for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that it is true that some of the candidates, below the petitioner, were appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court but the petitioner till date has not furnished the declaration that she belongs to the district of Siwan. 5. In paragraph 5 of the writ application filed on behalf of the petitioner it is stated that the persons, namely Nayantara Kumari and Dawayanti Kumari, who are below the petitioner, were appointed. 6. Those facts, however, are admitted by the State in the supplementary counter affidavit that the aforesaid two candidates were appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court in year 2001. 7. Counsel for the State, however, submits that since the petitioner is approaching this Court at a highly belated stage she is not entitled for the same relief which was granted to those writ petitioners. 8. It appears from the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties that Dawayanti Kumari and Nayantara Kumari were appointed after several years of the panel prepared in the year 1988 and, therefore, the submission of the counsel for the State that the prayer of the petitioner since has been made at a belated stage should be rejected, is wholly misconceived. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the successful candidates shown in the panel of 1988. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the successful candidates shown in the panel of 1988. It is also not in dispute that she was selected in the district of Siwan alongwith others whereas persons below her were appointed at a belated stage. i.e. in 2001. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner is not giving her declaration as to which district she belongs to in my opinion, is equally misconceived. 11. The appointment in public office cannot be restricted to district-wise nor region-wise. A person can be appointed irrespective of his/her region or district. The Apex Court while dealing with similar situation in the case of Sabita Prasad reported in 1994(1) PLJR page 62(S.C.) held that preparation of the district-wise panel is not permissible in law.The contention of the counsel for the State, in this view of the matter, has no substance. 12. The case of the petitioner, in that view of the matter, must be considered by the State afresh for her appointment out of the panel from which such appointments were also made in 2001. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. The respondents authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and issue appointment letter to her in accordance with law if she fulfils all the criteria for such appointment forthwith.