CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6925 OF 1997 … In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. … IS MOHAMMAD MIYAN & ORS .. .. Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .. .. Respondents. For The Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For The Respondent :( N o n e. ) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A.Khan,J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 23.6.1997 contained in Annexure 14 whereby and where-under the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the posts of Assistant teachers has been rejected by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. An advertisement was issued in 1985 for appointment to the post of Assistant teachers. The candidates applying for the post were to have training degree of a training college. At that time the twenty petitioners had appeared in the B. Ed. examination but their results were not published and as such they represented before the authorities that they should be allowed to make application for the said post. Consequently second advertisement was issued in 1987. The petitioners made their applications against the 1987 advertisement and appeared for the interview. The results of the petitioners was to be published in February, 1985. 2 3. Being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners were not selected and called for interview against the 1985 advertisement, the petitioners moved this court in CWJC No. 10860 of 1995 . The last order passed on 1.10.1996 is Annexure 12 to the writ petition wherein this court framed certain questions and remanded the matter back to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar for consideration. One of the grievance of the petitioners before this court was that Md. Mahfooz Alam, Md. Afaque Ahmad and Md. Reyaz Ahmad who had passed their training examination along with the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant teachers ignoring the claim of the petitioners. 4. While considering the representation of the petitioners, the Director, Primary Education framed certain issues which were relevant for deciding the matter. The issues were: (i) Whether the petitioners would be entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant teachers ? (ii) Whether there was a joint panel against the advertisements made in the years 1985 and 1987? (iii) Whether Md. Mahfooz Alam, Md. Afaque Ahmad and Md. Reyaz Ahmad were rightly appointed? (iv) Whether the appointments were made on the basis of date of appearing in the examination or on the basis of the sessions in which a particular candidate received training ? 4. The Director, Primary Education then after considering the documents and the reports on the first issue has found that there was a 3 separate panel of candidates against the advertisements of 1985 and 1987. Admittedly, the petitioners did not appear for the interview along with other candidates who had applied in 1985, the reason being that on the date on which the interview was held, the petitioners had not passed the training examination and as such they were not eligible on that date to be considered for being appointed as Assistant teachers. There can be no doubt about the fact that although the petitioners had got themselves admitted in the training college, they could not have been considered for appointment unless they had actually passed the training examination. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the persons similarly situated to them who were selected in the interview held in 1987 were appointed as Assistant teachers. After examining this aspect the Director, Primary Education has come to the conclusion that in fact the persons were appointed against the 1985 advertisement although they had not passed the training examination at the relevant time. As such the Director has taken steps to issue show cause notices to aforesaid three persons, namely, Md. Mahfooz Alam, Afaque Ahmad and Reyaz Ahmad with respect to their appointment as Assistant teachers. 6. The fact that three persons were wrongly considered for appointment as Assistant teachers would not by itself give any right to the petitioners to seek appointment on the ground of discrimination specially in view of the fact that steps have been taken by the Director, Primary Education for canceling their appointment. In my view, the 4 petitioners cannot claim any relief on the ground of discrimination. I have already found that the order contained in Annexure 14 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistant teachers is justified. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, December 5, 2008, NAFR/ Haque. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)