TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P. -I and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed off at this stage. At the outset, Mr. V. Shivnath prays that he be allowed to implead the Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand as respondent. Let him do so.
(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, an advertisement was caused to be published in the newspaper in the year 1985 calling for applications from male and female teachers for filling up 514 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers. The petitioner applied. Thereafter, interview etc. were held and a panel was prepared and finally on 28.5.1988, the respondent No. 4 (The Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad) appointed the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the Rajkiya Middle School, Digwadih vide Annexure -1 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner joined her service on 30.5.1988. On 3.11.1988, the respondent No. 5 (Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad) cancelled the appointment of the petitioner without issuing any show -cause notice and without any opportunity of hearing. In fact, along with the petitioner 175 other teachers also faced the same fate and 69 out of them filed a writ petition before the then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 01 of 1992(R). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide judgment and order dated 8.12.1993, the aforementioned writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of cancellation of service was quashed. Thereafter, the State Government filed a Special Leave Petition which ultimately was dismissed by the Supreme Court as has been stated in paragraph 19 of the writ application. Subsequently, another writ application was filed by another set of teachers vide C.W.J.C. No. 108 of 1995(R) and that writ application was also allowed and the impugned order of cancellation was also quashed.
(3.) AFTER the aforementioned judgment was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 108 of 1995(R), the petitioner filed representation vide An -nexure -3 and 3/4 requesting the respondents that in view of the judgments, she should also have been given the same benefit, but it was not granted to her and she had requested the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad a number of times but he had merely given assurances that in the month of August, 1995, the non petitioners would also be allowed to join but inspite there of nothing happened. The aforementioned statements can be found in Annexure 3/4 of the writ petition. In the same annexure, the petitioner has further stated that thereafter she requested the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad on a number of occasions and prayed that she should be allowed, to join, but no orders were passed and on 17.1.2001, he told her that no orders would be given from the office of the District Superintendent of Education and she should meet the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, she sent the representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad which appears to have been received in his office on 27.1.2000. Even thereafter, when the petitioner was not favoured with equal treatment as was given to the petitioners of the above mentioned writ application, the petitioner finally moved this writ application and filed the same on 7.3.2000.;