IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8110 of 2001 1. BIHAR STATE NON-FORMAL EDUCATION EMPLOYEES UNION, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA, S/O MADAN MOHAN MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE- GORAIYA STHAN, P.S.-MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. MAHESHWAR PATHAK, S/O SHRI SATYADEO PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE-NAUTAN, P.S.-SANGRAMPUR, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 3. SUBHASH PRASAD YADAV, S/O LATE MOTI PD. YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-DHODHARA, P.S.-NARHAT, DISTRICT- NAWADAH. 4. BAIJNATH SAO, S/O LATE ANAND SAO, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- PARTHU, P.S.-PIPRA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. ANIL KUMAR SINHA, S/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA MOHAN INDUSTRIES LANE, GARDANIBAGH, P.S.-GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. 6. CHANDRAMANI PATHAK, S/O KALA NATH PATHAK, R/O MOHALLA-PATHAK TOLI, P.S.-SHERGHATI, DISTRICT- GAYA. …………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY, PRIMARY & ADULT EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, MASS EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (JUSTICE), GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 7. THE CABINET SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. …………………RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. B.K. KANTH, SR. ADV. FOR THE STATE : MR. SUNIL KUMAR MANDAL, SC-XV AND MR. BIPIN KUMAR, ADV. AC TO SC-XV. ----------- 5 02.07.2009 As per their case, the petitioners were appointed as Non-Formal Education Supervisors under a scheme formulated by the Government of India in 1981-82 and they continued as such. However, there was some claim with regard to equal pay for equal work by some of them before this Court and after a series of - 2 - litigation a Full Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider absorption and regularization of the petitioners on a suitable post in view of the hardship that they have suffered. Thereafter respondents came up with one time rule in 2001 for holding an examination for such Supervisors for their appointment or absorption in regular service of the Government. The minimum eligibility in the said Rule for appearing in the examination was 45% Marks in Matriculation and three years experience as the Supervisor. However, many of them did not had the minimum 45% marks in the Matriculation as that was not the eligibility criteria for their appointment under the scheme at the relevant point of time. Resultantly large number of Supervisors could not appear in the examination and in this writ application they have challenged the virus of the said rules. Petitioners claim that requirement of minimum 45% of marks in Matriculation was not an eligibility criteria for appointment of primary teachers under Government service nor was it a criteria for their appointment as supervisors under the scheme. - 3 - During the pendency of the writ application, the State Government changed its stand and decided to consider the cases of all the Supervisors of the scheme who were left out after the examination was held under the rules because of their ineligibility for appearing in the examination. On the last occasion learned senior counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-13 to contend that now the State Government is actively considering the absorption of the erstwhile Supervisors in the regular service of the Government on Class-III posts. In view of the Annexure-13 and 13/A, learned Standing Counsel No. 15 was directed to seek instructions with regard to progress made in the process. Today he informs this Court that the process is at an advance stage and State Government is in a position to identify the vacancies in Class-III posts under different Departments for absorption of the erstwhile Supervisors within a couple of months. In view of that categorical statement of learned Standing Counsel No. 15, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that - 4 - the writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the process within a fixed time frame and pass necessary orders for their absorption as per the decision of the Government reflecting from Annexure-13 and 13/A. Learned Standing Counsel no. 15 has no objection to such direction by this Court. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the process of absorption of erstwhile Supervisors like the petitioners and other similarly situated Supervisors as per their decision reflected from Annexure-13 and 13/A preferably within a period of four months from today. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)