S. B. Sinha, Actg.C.J. - (1.) The instant appeals depict as how changes in the stand of the counsels representing the parties to the lis before different forums lead to different orders.
(2.) Shortly stated the fact of the matters as under : The writ petitioners filed a writ application claiming inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint them by way of absorption purported to be on the ground that they are trained teachers. A writ petition had been field in the year 1983 before this Court questioning the legality of empanelment of candidates by the State of West Bengal in terms of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Rules, 1940 framed under The Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930. The said writ application was filed on the ground that several irregularities had been committed by the respondents in the conduct of examination. The matter went up to the Apex Court and its decision is reported in (1996) 7 SCC 333: (1996 Lab IC 750) (Paschimbanga Prathamik Sikshak Sikshan Prapts Bhar-OSikshak Samiti v. President, West Bengal Primary School Council) , keeping in view the gross irregularities committed by the authorities of the Education Department of the State of West Bengal including the Director of School Education in the matter of preparation of panel in the Districts of West Bengal certain orders were passed. The Apex Court got an enquiry conducted in respect of appointments made in each of the Districts but found that gross illegalities have been committed in the District of Malda and Midnapore; although certain irregularities in other Districts had also been found. But keeping in view the number of candidates involved in the other districts, their Lordships set aside the panel prepared only in respect of the Districts of Malda and Midnapore. The Apex Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed : "But, keeping in view the nature of the irregularities and the illegalities committed in the preparation of the panels in the districts in Malda and Midnapur, we feel that the mere recasting of the panels, as directed by the High Court in respect of the panel of Midnapur would not meet the ends of justice and legitimate aspirations of the bona fide and deserving candidates. We, therefore, quash the panels for recruitment to the post of primary school teachers in the districts of Malda and Midnapur and direct the respective Boards/Councils to prepare fresh panels in accordance with law, keeping in view the directions of the High Court in its earlier judgment dated 10-5-991 and give appointments from those panels only. As the applicants, at whose instance the writ petitions were filed in the High Court by their societies, which ultimately gave rise to the present appeals, have been ventilating their legitimate grievances for a number of years it is just and desirable that they should not be debarred from being considered for appointment solely on the ground that they have crossed the age bar provided under the rules, notifications or circulars, as the case may be. Needless to say that this direction of ours is to be complied with while preparing the initial panels in terms of this order and not subsequent panels. Since the matter is long pending the panels should be prepared within a period of six months from today. Any appointments already made from the panels of the above two districts may be continued on the clear understanding that such appointments shall stand terminated on corresponding appointments being made from the fresh panels unless, of course, such appointees also qualify to be empanelled therein. As regards the other districts concerned we, however, make it clear that the directions given by the High Court in the impugned judgment for being complied with before giving appointment from the panel prepared for the district of Howrah, will also apply to them and in complying with the above directions the respondents shall keep in view the observations and findings of the Special Officers appointed by this Court."
(3.) The writ petitioners were not candidates for appointment in the year 1983. They underwent Junior Basic Training and obtained a certificate therefor by the competent authority. They claimed their appointments only on that basis.;