MAMTA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are off -shoots of CWJC No. 9555 of 1998 (Vijay Prasad and another V/s. State of Bihar) and analogous cases. The dispute relates to appointment of lecturers in Government Polytechnics and Mining Institutes under the Science and Technology Department of the Government of Bihar.

(2.) BEFORE setting out the factual background it may briefly be mentioned that CWJC No. 9555 of 1998 and analogous cases were filed for quashing the final result of selection for the post of lecturer in Government Polytechnics and Mining Institutes in the State of Bihar. By judgment and order dated 14.12.99 this Court held that selection of part -time lecturers who did not appear or pass the written (screening) test was not in accordance with law and accordingly asked the Bihar Public Service Commission to delete the names of such part time lecturers from the merit list/panel - to be replaced by candidates in order of merit. Pursuant to the said order, on 23.2.2000 the impugned result dated 17.8.99 was cancelled in part and and a fresh result was published, CWJC No. 2388/ 2000 by Umesh Pandey, CWJC No. 2389/ 2000 by Mamta Kumari and CWJC No. 2302 by Diiip Kumar Choudhary are directed against the said result/notice dated 23.2.2000. Mamta Kumari and Umesh Pandey meanwhile had also filed LPA No. 476/2000 against the judgment and order dated 14.12.99 in CWJC No. 9555/98 and analogous. On 13.11.2001 the LPA was disposed of with an observation that they could file a fresh writ petition or a petition for review of the judgment. Accordingly they filed CWJC No. 1504/2002. In the meantime the successful candidates vide result/notice dated 23.2.2000 (supra) also approached this Court in CWJC No. 8801/ 2001 seeking direction for their appointment on the basis of the revised result. All these cases involving the same dispute were made analogous and taken up for hearing together. CWJC No. 1504/2000 was argued as the leading case.

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioners in those cases was that candidates who had failed in the written/screening test could not be selected, for screening test was part of the selection process and having failed at such test they could not be selected on the basis of only interview. The Commission took the stand that the screening test was not a part of selection process, which really began after the screening. Further in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, the part -time lecturers were entitled to participate in the recruitment process and have their cases considered on the basis of only work experience as part -time lecturers. Thus the fact that some of them did not appear or pass the screening test was immaterial the Commission therefore did not commit any error in selecting them on the basis of interview alone.