- (1.)All the petitioners, in these three Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, are similarly situated. After getting the requisite training they have acquired the nomenclature of 'trained teachers'. They seek an appointments in the schools run by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand as assistant teachers. Some IAs filed by several similarly situated teachers for impleadment and seeking the same relief. It is for this reason that these petitions were conjointly heard.
(2.)The exact prayer, contained in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 173 of 2010, would give a glimpse of the nature of the case set up by these petitioners and the precise relief which these petitioners pray for. This prayer reads as under:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioners and similarly circumstanced Trained Teachers in order of seniority.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents and more particularly the State of Jharkhand (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to protect fundamental right of Primary Education to the children of State of Jharkhand by appointing the Trained Teachers available in the Jharkhand State on the sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant Teachers.

iii) Pass such other or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.

The background in which these petitions have come to be filed is somewhat detailed one with chequered history, riddled with previous litigation benefit whereof the petitioners are seeking. However, we would endeavour to traverse through these events in as simple a manner as possible.

(3.)As is well known, the State of Jharkhand was created in the year 2000. Before that it was a part of the State of Bihar. All these petitioners belong to undivided Bihar vintage. They claim that they are qualified and trained teachers who acquired requisite qualification and underwent necessary training and thus became eligible to be considered for appointment as primary teachers in the schools run by the State Government as per the provisions of the Extant Rules on the subject. However, even when the Government was legally bound to appoint only the trained teachers, on the basis of an advertisement issued on 6.10.1991 by the Government of Bihar for filling up of 25,000 posts of Assistant Teachers, the State recruited 17,281 untrained teachers out of total appointments of 19,272 Assistant Teachers made in the said recruitment process. This selection was challenged by some persons by filing writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna which was decided on 26.9.1996. The High Court did not quash the appointments already made, though at the same time it held that the State would not force a person to confine his application to a particular district. Against this order, Special Leave Petition No. 23187 of 1996 was preferred before this Court. In those proceedings an affidavit dated 14.8.1997 was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bihar Government agreeing to appoint trained teacher against existing vacancies. Having regard to the averments made in the said affidavit, SLP was disposed of vide order dated 5.9.1997. This case is known as Ram Vinay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1998 9 SCC 227. The exact directions regarding appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers which were given by this Court are the following:
"(i) The Commission shall conduct a special selection for the purpose of appointment of these unfilled posts from amongst applicants who had submitted their applications.

(ii) The selection shall be confined to applicants possessing teacher's training/ qualification obtained from government/ private teacher's training institutions.

(iii) The selection shall be made by holding a preliminary test and a written examination of the candidates who qualify in the preliminary test.

iv) In case the number of persons found suitable for appointment in such special selection exceeds the number of posts for which recruitment was to be made on the basis of advertisement dated 6.10.1991, the surplus number of candidates who have been found suitable for the appointment would be justified against posts to be filled on the basis of subsequent selection.

v) The special selection which is to be conducted in pursuance of these directions shall be completed by the Commission by 31.1.1997."