//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – appointment of trained teachers in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the state of Bihar = several trained teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the State of Bihar. = Be that as it may, in the event, some discrepancies had crept in the final select list, the individual grievances contained various anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel. Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13th October, 2011, and allow the applicants to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances. We also direct that the applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. We have been informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be filled up. All the applications, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question.

 Reported in      http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40581   

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26824 OF 2012

 

 

 

YASHWANT SINGH & ORS. … PETITIONERS

 

VS.

 

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

 

WITH
I.A.Nos. 668, 669, 671, 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 680, 681, and Dy.
Nos.96650,102358, 102908, 107866/2011 and 1117, 1251, 3372, 3363,
4307, 4775, 5820, 4785, 5802, 7277, 8002, 7861, 7860, 8223, 8232,
8025, 8709, 9296, 9291, 9610, 9582, 10029, 10303, 10783, 10777,
10773, 10772, 10817, 10822, 11173, 4069, 11080, 11355, 11872, 12010,
12009, 12012, 12523, 4473, 13535, 13533, 13883, 14230, 14529, 14902,
14901, 15677, 5602, 17890, 17893, 19256, 20919, 20920, 5727, 22003,
30504/2012 and Contempt Petition (C) No.87/2013 in Contempt
Petition (C) No.297/2007 in S.L.P. (C) No.22882 of 2004
W.P. (C) No.49 of 2013
S.L.P. (C) No.5946 of 2013
Writ Petition (C) No.344 of 2012

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

 

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

 
1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22882-22888 of 2004 were filed
by several trained teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to
appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the
State of Bihar. The same was withdrawn on an undertaking given on
behalf of the State of Bihar on 18th January, 2006, whereby the State
of Bihar committed itself to recruiting and filling up the vacant
posts of teachers in primary schools with trained teachers. The
undertaking given by the State of Bihar reads as follows:
“That in the meantime, it has been decided that trained teachers
be recruited on the vacant posts available in the State of
Bihar. The Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003
having been quashed by the Patna High Court, new recruitment
rules are contemplated to facilitate recruitment of trained
teachers in a decentralized manner, by giving them age
relaxation as ordered by the High Court.
That Chapters 6 and 7 of the Bihar Education Code relating to
oriental education and hostels and messes will be kept in mind,
as directed by the Patna High Court, while making recruitment of
teachers.
That it is respectfully submitted that since the number of
available trained teachers in the State is expected to be less
than the available vacancies, no test for selection is required
to that extent, a reference to this Bihar Public Service
Commission for initiating the process of recruitment of trained
teachers may not be necessary, and the order of this Hon’ble
Court and of the Patna High Court in this regard may be
modified”

 

2. The application made for withdrawal of the Special Leave
Petition was disposed of by this Court on 23rd January, 2006.
Subsequently, when the State of Bihar failed to abide by its
commitments and assurances, the Petitioner, Nand Kishore Ojha, filed
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 207 of 2006, and the same was disposed
of with a direction upon the State of Bihar to implement the
undertaking given earlier, upon a categorical statement being made
that priority would be given to the trained teachers in matters of
appointment in the said posts.
3. Thereafter, on account of further default on the part of
the State of Bihar to honour its commitments, another Contempt
Petition, being Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2007, was filed
and several applications were made in the Contempt Petition by trained
teachers similarly situated, for being impleaded as parties to the
proceedings. Ultimately, the learned Attorney General appeared before
us on 25th August, 2009, and assured us that it was not the intention
of the State of Bihar to resile from the undertaking given on its
behalf. Since there had been a change in the administrative set up in
the State of Bihar, the situation had become more complex and it had
become difficult to work out a solution to the problem posed in
filling up the vacancies in the post of primary school teachers
throughout the State of Bihar. When Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297
was taken up for consideration, we heard the same along with several
interlocutory applications filed by several teachers having individual
grievances and reserved judgment.
4. By our order dated 13th October, 2011, on the Contempt Petition
filed in SLP(C) No. 22882 of 2004, arising out of the breach of
undertaking given on 18th January, 2006, by the State of Bihar and the
order passed on the basis thereof on 23rd January, 2006 in the
aforesaid SLP, we had passed orders directing that the trained
teachers who at one time were less than the number of vacant posts,
should be given appointment in the vacancies that were available.
Subsequently, however, there was some discrepancy as to the number of
vacancies available as against the number of teachers to be
accommodated. Accordingly, we adopted a figure from an advertisement,
which had been published for recruitment of primary school teachers
and took the number of available vacancies to be 34,540. We had
further directed that the said vacancies be filled up with the said
number of trained teachers as a one time measure to give effect to the
undertakings given on 18th January, 2006 and 23rd January, 2006.
5. Subsequently, it came to light that the number of candidates
available were much more than the number of vacancies and there were
also serious doubts raised about the eligibility of some of the
candidates and the genuineness of some of the institutions from which
they alleged to have received their training. In our order of 19th
January, 2011, we had indicated that certain incongruities had been
pointed out on behalf of the Petitioners with regard to the list of
eligible candidates furnished by the State of Bihar.
6. When the said dispute could not be resolved in terms of the list
produced by the State of Bihar, we thought it fit to entrust a neutral
person with the work and, accordingly, we had appointed Justice V.A.
Mohta, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, who retired as Chief
Justice of the Orissa High Court, as Special Officer in whose presence
the list could be settled. However, since Justice Mohta expressed his
desire to be relieved of the responsibility, by our order dated 24th
February, 2011, while relieving Justice V.A. Mohta, we appointed Mr.
Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court in
his place, to take up and complete the finalization of the seniority
list. After much debate, the list submitted by Justice Chattopadhyay
was accepted and in terms of the recommendations made, 34,540
candidates were appointed in different primary schools in the State of
Bihar.
7. The matter did not end there. On account of the fact that
some of the candidates, who had not appeared before Justice
Chattopadhyay, came up with fresh applications in support of their
cases and urged that there were various omissions from the final
select list, we decided to entertain the said applications,
particularly, on account of the directions, which we had given, in our
judgment and order dated 13th October, 2011, that no court would
entertain any objection or applications with regard to the list of
candidates, who had already been appointed, in terms of our earlier
order.
8. During the hearing of these applications, special leave
petitions and writ petitions, what emerged is that most of the
applicants were aggrieved by some defect or the other in the
preparation of the select list, which occurred on account of the
failure of the candidates to give their relevant particulars to
Justice Chattopadhyay.
9. Be that as it may, in the event, some discrepancies had
crept in the final select list, the individual grievances contained
various anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel.
Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13th October, 2011, and allow
the applicants to approach the High Court for redressal of their
grievances. We also direct that the applications, special leave
petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn,
with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or
otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the
appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against
the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. We have been informed during
the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still
left to be filled up. All the applications, Special Leave Petitions
and Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the
aforesaid observations. We make it clear that none of the persons
appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way,
but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into
consideration, while disposing of the applications in question.
…………………………………………………CJI.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

 

………………………………………………………J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)
………………………………………………………J.

(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

New Delhi
Dated: July 18,2013.

 

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,475 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: