IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4789 of 2007 1. RAKESH RANJAN SON OF YOGENDRA PRASAD YADAV RESDIENT OF VILLAGE MASHURHIA P.S. SAUR BAZAR DISTRICT SAHARSA. 2. RANJAN RAKESH SON OF YOGENDRA PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASHURNIA P.S. SAUR BAZAR DISTRICT SAHARSA. 3. KUMARI ARCHANA DAUGHTER OF SUKHA SAGAR YADAV RESIDENT OF MOHALLA VIJAY BHAWAN NAYA TOLA KATIHAR P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. D.S.E., KATIHAR. 5. D.S.E., MADHEPURA. 6. D.S.E., SAHARSA. 7. D.S.E., KHAGARIA. 8. D.S.E., PATNA. 9. D.S.E., JEHANABAD. 10. D.S.E., PURNIA 11. D.E.O., KATIHAR. 12. D.E.O,, MADHEPURA. 13. D.E.O., SAHARSA. 14. D.E.O., KHAGARIA. 15. D.E.O., PATNA. 16. D.E.O., JEHANABAD. 17. D.E.O., PURNIA 18. B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 19. REGISTRAR, B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY MADHEPURA. 20. KATIHAR ZILA PARISHAD SIKSHA NIYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KATIHAR. 21. MADHEPURA ZILA PARISHAD SIKSHAK NIYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THORUGH ITS SECRETARY MADHEPURA. 22. SAHARSA ZILA PARISAD, SIKSHAK NIYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THORUGH ITS SECRETARY SAHARSA. 23. KHAGARIA ZILA PARISAD, SIKSHAK NOYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY KATIHAR. 24. PURNIA ZILA PARISHAD SIKSHAK NIYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETRY PURNIA. 25. JEHANABAD ZILA PARISHAD SIKSHA NIYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY JEHANABAD. 26. PATNA ZILA PARISAD MADHYAMIK SIKSHAK NIYOZAN PANEL SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PATNA. ---------------------------------- 2 02. 15.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners were applicant for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to advertisement published in the year 2006. Their candidature was not considered as they had prosecuted their B.Ed. course from Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar (hereinafter referred to as the College) and had passed the same from B.N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as the University). Marksheet of the three petitioners is contained in Annexure-1 series to this application. Perusal whereof indicates that petitioners were registered with the University for prosecuting their B.Ed. course in the College and appeared in the Bachelor of Education Examination, 1996 conducted by the University in the month of February, 1997 and their marksheet was issued on 7, 4.6.1998 and 11.12.1997. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that other students who prosecuted B.Ed course in the College and appeared in the Bachelor of Education 3 Examination, 1996 held by the University in the month of February, 1997 were also not allowed to become candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers pursuant to 2006 advertisement, they moved this Court by filing writ petition, which was dismissed, matter was taken in appeal vide L.P.A. No.453 of 2001 and other analogous appeals, which was allowed under judgment dated 5.1.2007, Annexure-2 directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellants for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in the light of B.Ed. degree obtained by them after prosecuting B.Ed. studies in the College and becoming successful in the examination conducted by the University. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners herein is also similar to that of the case of the appellants of L.P.A. No.453 of 2001 and other analogous appeals who were considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2006. 3. By filing counter affidavit the State respondents have brought on record the notice dated 4 9.2.2007 published pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2006 inviting the appellants of L.P.A. No.453 of 2001 and other analogous appeals to appear and participate in the selection process and with reference to the said notice it is submitted that the selection process pursuant to 2006 advertisement having been concluded, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered for appointment against the vacancy notified in the year 2006 advertisement. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the marksheet of the petitioners contained in Annexure-1 series, I direct the State respondents to verify the genuineness of the marksheet of the petitioners and if the marksheet of the petitioners is found genuine and their case is similar to the case of the appellants of L.P.A. No.453 of 2001 and other analogous appeals then their case be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the subsequent selection process. It goes without saying that against the judgment of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No.453 of 2001 and other analogous appeals matter has been taken by 5 the University to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the consideration of the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher shall be subject to the result of S.L.P. filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.453 of 2001. It further goes without saying that if petitioners are otherwise qualified for selection on the post of Assistant Teacher, they be granted age relaxation as for no fault on their part their candidature was not considered pursuant to the year 2006 selection process. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)