- (1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Habib, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.J. Rahman, learned J.C. to the J.P. II for the State -respondents. Although the State of Jharkhand has not been made a party, but since the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad is the respondent No. 3 Mr. M.J. Rahman submits that he has necessary instructions to appear in this case.
(2.) THE facts pleaded in this writ petition paints a somewhat dismal picture in relation to the status to which the petitioner has been subjected. He was empanelled in the year 1986. but he was not given employment only because he did not belong to the district of Dhanbad. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the criteria that people of a particular district should only be appointed has been hit by a number of judgments being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because it discriminates the residents of other districts without any rationale and these judgments are reported in 1987 PLJR -846, Anil Kumar V/s. State of Bihar; 1990 PLJR 226, Priti Biswas V/s. State of Bihar; and (1991) 1 PLJR 33, Devanand Roy V/s. State of Bihar. From the pleadings, it appears that the process of appointment from the 1986 panel started in 1987 itself and others were appointed. Since the respondents chose not to appoint the petitioner on the aforementioned criteria, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 527 of 1989(R). That writ petition was disposed -off on 18.3.1999. Mr. M.K. Habib. learned counsel for the petitioner produced for perusal of this Court a photocopy of that order and the same is, therefore, being reproduced below. The said order reads as follows : "2.8.1989 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader No. 2 and perused the writ petition. Respondents could not have refused to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Science on the ground that he was not a permanent resident of the district of Dhanbad. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, if he is otherwise fit to be so appointed."
(3.) IT further appears that even after the aforementioned order, the respondents chose not to appoint the petitioner. This compelled him to file a contempt application which was registered as MJC No. 177 of 1990 (R). It is, thereafter, that the petitioner seems to have been appointed on 26.3.1991. but when his seniority list was prepared his seniority was given from the actual date of appointment.;