- (1.) Shorn of details the circumstances giving rise to the filing of these petitions seeking certain directions and initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents are as follows: The petitioners were at the relevant time working as primary school teachers in the State of Bihar. Services of some of the teachers were terminated. The orders of termination were questioned before the High Court of Patna and a Division Bench of that Court vide judgment dated 11-8-1989 accepted the position that the services of the teachers had been terminated on account of improper and illegal recruitment by the State. The High (court was, however, of the opinion that the petitioners were not in any way responsible for the improper recruitment. The Division Bench gave a direction to the State to screen appropriately the cases of the petitioners and to recruit those who satisfy the requirements. The Division Bench noticed as follows: "On the facts of this case, we observe that persons who are qualified for appointments deserve a consideration and appointment, accordingly on such posts for which they are qualified in preference to other candidates who may be qualified. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to proceed to take up the appointments of the teachers in the Elementary Schools of Santhal Pargana and Deoghar by inviting applications from the petitioners and other persons who have been removed because they were illegally recuited by the District Superintendent of Education and selected if they satisfy the eligibility conditions and appoint them. In doing so the Respondent State must relax the age limit in case of any of the petitioners found to have become over age during the period of service on stipend and removal. The petitioners And/ or any other candidate who may be appointed in the vacancy so created on account of removal of the petitioners and other persons appointed by the District Superintendent of Education shall however not claim any benefit of the appointment illegally given to them by the District Superintendent of Education but shall receive emoluments and other benefits by dint of their selection and appointment in accordance with law."
(2.) The Court also found that the orders served on the petitioners were violative of principles of natural justice. However, the Court did not quash the orders of termination but directed that in future selections, preference would be given to the petitioners.The petitioners filed special leave petitions seeking quashing of the termination orders.
(3.) xx xx xx;