Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26824 OF 2012
YASHWANT SINGH & ORS. … PETITIONERS
VS.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
I.A.Nos. 668, 669, 671, 674, 675, 676, 677, 679,
680, 681, and Dy. Nos.96650,102358, 102908,
107866/2011 and 1117, 1251, 3372, 3363, 4307,
4775, 5820, 4785, 5802, 7277, 8002, 7861, 7860,
8223, 8232, 8025, 8709, 9296, 9291, 9610, 9582,
10029, 10303, 10783, 10777, 10773, 10772, 10817,
10822, 11173, 4069, 11080, 11355, 11872, 12010,
12009, 12012, 12523, 4473, 13535, 13533, 13883,
14230, 14529, 14902, 14901, 15677, 5602, 17890,
17893, 19256, 20919, 20920, 5727, 22003, 30504/2012
and Contempt Petition (C) No.87/2013 in
Contempt Petition (C) No.297/2007 in S.L.P. (C)
No.22882 of 2004
JUDGMENT
W.P. (C) No.49 of 2013
S.L.P. (C) No.5946 of 2013
Writ Petition (C) No.344 of 2012
O R D E R
1
Page 1
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.
22882-22888 of 2004 were filed by several trained
teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to
appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary
teachers in the State of Bihar. The same was
withdrawn on an undertaking given on behalf of the
th
State of Bihar on 18 January, 2006, whereby the
State of Bihar committed itself to recruiting and
filling up the vacant posts of teachers in primary
schools with trained teachers. The undertaking
given by the State of Bihar reads as follows:
"That in the meantime, it has been decided
that trained teachers be recruited on the
vacant posts available in the State of
Bihar. The Bihar Elementary Teachers
Appointment Rules, 2003 having been quashed
by the Patna High Court, new recruitment
rules are contemplated to facilitate
recruitment of trained teachers in a
decentralized manner, by giving them age
relaxation as ordered by the High Court.
JUDGMENT
That Chapters 6 and 7 of the Bihar Education
Code relating to oriental education and
hostels and messes will be kept in mind, as
directed by the Patna High Court, while
making recruitment of teachers.
That it is respectfully submitted that since
2
Page 2
the number of available trained teachers in
the State is expected to be less than the
available vacancies, no test for selection
is required to that extent, a reference to
this Bihar Public Service Commission for
initiating the process of recruitment of
trained teachers may not be necessary, and
the order of this Hon'ble Court and of the
Patna High Court in this regard may be
modified"
2. The application made for withdrawal of the
Special Leave Petition was disposed of by this
rd
Court on 23 January, 2006. Subsequently, when the
State of Bihar failed to abide by its commitments
and assurances, the Petitioner, Nand Kishore Ojha,
filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 207 of 2006,
and the same was disposed of with a direction upon
the State of Bihar to implement the undertaking
given earlier, upon a categorical statement being
made that priority would be given to the trained
JUDGMENT
teachers in matters of appointment in the said
posts.
3. Thereafter, on account of further default
on the part of the State of Bihar to honour its
commitments, another Contempt Petition, being
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2007, was
3
Page 3
filed and several applications were made in the
Contempt Petition by trained teachers similarly
situated, for being impleaded as parties to the
proceedings. Ultimately, the learned Attorney
th
General appeared before us on 25 August, 2009, and
assured us that it was not the intention of the
State of Bihar to resile from the undertaking given
on its behalf. Since there had been a change in
the administrative set up in the State of Bihar,
the situation had become more complex and it had
become difficult to work out a solution to the
problem posed in filling up the vacancies in the
post of primary school teachers throughout the
State of Bihar. When Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
297 was taken up for consideration, we heard the
same along with several interlocutory applications
JUDGMENT
filed by several teachers having individual
grievances and reserved judgment.
th
4.By our order dated 13 October, 2011, on the
Contempt Petition filed in SLP(C) No. 22882 of
2004, arising out of the breach of undertaking
th
given on 18 January, 2006, by the State of Bihar
4
Page 4
rd
and the order passed on the basis thereof on 23
January, 2006 in the aforesaid SLP, we had passed
orders directing that the trained teachers who at
one time were less than the number of vacant posts,
should be given appointment in the vacancies that
were available. Subsequently, however, there was
some discrepancy as to the number of vacancies
available as against the number of teachers to be
accommodated. Accordingly, we adopted a figure
from an advertisement, which had been published for
recruitment of primary school teachers and took the
number of available vacancies to be 34,540. We had
further directed that the said vacancies be filled
up with the said number of trained teachers as a
one time measure to give effect to the undertakings
th rd
given on 18 January, 2006 and 23 January, 2006.
JUDGMENT
5.Subsequently, it came to light that the number of
candidates available were much more than the number
of vacancies and there were also serious doubts
raised about the eligibility of some of the
candidates and the genuineness of some of the
institutions from which they alleged to have
5
Page 5
th
received their training. In our order of 19
January, 2011, we had indicated that certain
incongruities had been pointed out on behalf of the
Petitioners with regard to the list of eligible
candidates furnished by the State of Bihar.
6.When the said dispute could not be resolved in
terms of the list produced by the State of Bihar,
we thought it fit to entrust a neutral person with
the work and, accordingly, we had appointed Justice
V.A. Mohta, a retired Judge of the Bombay High
Court, who retired as Chief Justice of the Orissa
High Court, as Special Officer in whose presence
the list could be settled. However, since Justice
Mohta expressed his desire to be relieved of the
th
responsibility, by our order dated 24 February,
JUDGMENT
2011, while relieving Justice V.A. Mohta, we
appointed Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay, a retired
Judge of the Patna High Court in his place, to take
up and complete the finalization of the seniority
list. After much debate, the list submitted by
Justice Chattopadhyay was accepted and in terms of
the recommendations made, 34,540 candidates were
6
Page 6
appointed in different primary schools in the State
of Bihar.
7. The matter did not end there. On account
of the fact that some of the candidates, who had
not appeared before Justice Chattopadhyay, came up
with fresh applications in support of their cases
and urged that there were various omissions from
the final select list, we decided to entertain the
said applications, particularly, on account of the
directions, which we had given, in our judgment and
th
order dated 13 October, 2011, that no court would
entertain any objection or applications with regard
to the list of candidates, who had already been
appointed, in terms of our earlier order.
8. During the hearing of these applications,
JUDGMENT
special leave petitions and writ petitions, what
emerged is that most of the applicants were
aggrieved by some defect or the other in the
preparation of the select list, which occurred on
account of the failure of the candidates to give
their relevant particulars to Justice
Chattopadhyay.
7
Page 7
9. Be that as it may, in the event, some
discrepancies had crept in the final select list,
the individual grievances contained various
anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel.
th
Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13 October,
2011, and allow the applicants to approach the High
Court for redressal of their grievances. We also
direct that the applications, special leave
petitions and writ petitions filed before us be
treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties
to approach the High Court individually or
otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any
way, affecting the appointments of those teachers
who have already been appointed against the vacant
34,540 posts and are working. We have been
JUDGMENT
informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts
out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be
filled up. All the applications, Special Leave
Petitions and Writ Petitions are, therefore,
disposed of in the light of the aforesaid
observations. We make it clear that none of the
persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies
8
Page 8
should be disturbed in any way, but the question of
filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into
consideration, while disposing of the applications
in question.
………………………………………………… .
CJI
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
……………………………………………………… .
J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
……………………………………………………… .
J
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
New Delhi
Dated: July 18,2013.
JUDGMENT
9
Page 9