SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has come for hearing after remand by the Supreme Court. When the writ application was placed for admission on 19th December, 1.991, a Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ-application. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded the matter for re-examination in the light of its decision in the case of Babita Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 268].

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioner prayed for appropriate direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment as assistant teacher in the district of Bhagalpur on the basis of placement of petitioner in the panel prepared for appointment of assistant teacher of Bhagalpur district in the year 1991, which panel has been approved in December 1987. A further relief has also been sought for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the basis of her placement in the panel and also for giving the petitioner all legal and consequential benefits flowing from the said appointment.

(3.) The facts of the case, set out by the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner after passing the Matriculation Examination and Pre- University Examination, took admission in Teachers Training Institute, known as, Elementary Teacher's Education College, Bhagalpur in 1976-78 Sessions. The petitioner completed her course satisfactorily inasmuch as he passed the Teachers, Training Examination in 1980 from Primary Teachers Education College, Bhagalpur meant for lady candidates. The petitioner's case was that although the petitioner took admission in the Teachers' Training College for the Sessions 1976-78, but the Examination of training was delayed due to administrative lapses and thus the result of the Training Examination was published in 1980-81, though the petitioner completed her training course in the month of May 1978. The petitioner's further case was that on 1st April 1981, an advertisement was published by the respondents for appointment on the post of teachers in the district of Bhagalpur and in the said advertisement different dates of interview were mentioned and there was no upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement for making appointment on the basis of said interview. The petitioner applied for her appointment and appeared before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of selection of teachers on the date fixed and the petitioner was selected for appointment by the Selection Committee. The Committee after scrutinizing all the testimonials of the petitioner and the other certificates and after being satisfied with the performance of petitioner in the interview put the petitioner in the list of successful candidates of the general teachers. The said interview was taken in May 1981, when the age of the petitioner was 35 years and 10 months and the panel was prepared in the month of May 1981 itself. The petitioner got 98th position in the panel prepared by the selection Committee of successful candidates in the District of Bhagalpur for making appointment as assistant teachers. The petitioner's further case was that the par.el aforesaid prepared by the Committee in 1981 was sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for approval and on the basis of 1981 panel, a final panel was prepared in the month of December 1987, after deleting such persons who were either employed in the meantime or were found not fit otherwise and in the panel prepared in the month of December 1987 the petitioner was put at serial No. 14 of the general category candidates which panel has been approved upto the level of Regional Deputy Director of Education as well as by the District Establishment Committee. The petitioner's further case was that due to administrative lapses and many stay orders passed by the competent court of law as well as the State Government, the result of 1976- 78 sessions of the Training Examination was published after long delay and the Examination of training college in different districts were taken too late as a result of which a large number of persons who passed the training course became over age for appointment as assistant teacher which age limit has been fixed by the Department by General Circular issued by the Department. Thus, a large number of students, who passed the training examination in Session 1976-78, approached the higher education authorities and the higher education authorities directed the Regional Deputy Director of Education concerned that as the Regional Deputy Director is the competent authority to relax the age limit of such candidates, so order relaxing the upper age limit should be passed by him, In the similar circumstances, the Director of Primary Education issued instructions to the District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai, that as the session of the College in question was delayed, so female candidates above the age of 35 years may be allowed to appear in interview. A copy of that letter is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writapplication. The petitioner's further case was that as she was already allowed to appear in the interview and she was selected as a successful candidate after scrutiny of all the papers related to her and as the District Establishment Committee approved .the appointment of the petitioner and passed order to make appointment from the select List in which petitioner's position was at serial No. 14 and as the petitioner with-held no information with regard to her age at the time she appeared in the interview for making apppintment and as the petitioner became sure of her appointment after her placement in the panel which was approved by the District Establishment Committee and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, so she became sure of her appointment and she did not apply for her appointment any where even after getting several opportunities. The petitioner alleged that a large number of persons who crossed the age limit of 30 years in the case of male candidate and the age limit of 35 years in the case of female candidate were appointed as assistant teacher in the different districts of the State of Bihar after relaxing their upper age limit and many persons who became over age got appointment in the district in question also because the interview in the district in question was delayed due to administrative lapses of the State Government but when the case of petitioner was not considered for her appointment condoning the upper age limit of the petitioner. She filed a writ application being C.W.J.C No. 3618 of 1988 claiming therein that the petitioner never withheld any information with regard to her date of birth and she was selected by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of making appointment and the panel prepared by the Selection Committee was approved by the Deputy Director of Education as well as by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, so for all practical purposes, the petitioner was entitled to appointed as assistant teacher. The petitioner also alleged in the aforementioned writ application that the authorities are making pick and choose and are issuing appointment letter applying different standards and more than 250 persons have been appointed from December 1987 till January 1988 from the panel prepared in 1981 in which the position of the petitioner is at serial No. 14 as per the approval given in 1987. She further took a point in the earlier writ application that the upper age limit prescribed for a lady candidate is 40 years and even recently advertisement has been made prescribing the upper age limit of lady candidate as 40 years and as in the year 1988, the upper age limit of a lady candidate for making appointment is 40 years, so it was not at all reasonable to say that the upper age limit of the lady candidate in 1981 was kept 35 years. The petitioner also took a point in that writ-application that one Navindra Jha Was given appointment letter but subsequently it was cancelled on the ground that he was over age on the date of interview and against the said order said Navindra Jha moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 807 of 1988 which was allowed at the admission stage giving direction to the State authorities to accept his joining. A copy of the said order has been filed and marked Annexure-3 to this writ-application. The petitioner, therefore, made out a case that her case is similar to that of Sri Navindra Jha in all respect, except that Navindra Jha received appointment letter for a few days but in the case of petitioner, the appointment letter was withheld otherwise. In the earlier writ application i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3618 of 1988 filed by the petitioner, a counter, affidavit was filed by the State stating intere alia the following statements in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said counter affidavit.