TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court decision on Bihar primary school teacher selection process</h1> <h3>Babita Prasad and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court declared the district-wise selection of primary school teachers in Bihar unconstitutional, leading to the rejection of district-based ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of district-wise selection of primary school teachers.2. Rights of candidates included in the panel for appointment.3. Validity of appointments made from the panel after the High Court's judgment.4. Discrimination between appointed and non-appointed candidates.5. Relief for candidates not appointed but included in the panel.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of District-wise Selection of Primary School Teachers:The primary issue revolves around the constitutionality of the district-wise selection process for appointing primary school teachers in Bihar. The High Court of Patna, in Anil Kumar v. Chief Secretary, declared the district-wise panels unconstitutional. The Government of Bihar subsequently issued a circular on 2.7.1989, rejecting the district-based panels and halting further appointments from these panels. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the district-wise selection was unconstitutional and should be discontinued.2. Rights of Candidates Included in the Panel for Appointment:The appellants argued that being included in the panel gave them a vested right to be appointed. However, the Supreme Court clarified that empanelment only conferred eligibility for appointment and did not create an indefeasible right to be appointed. The Court cited previous judgments, including State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, to assert that mere inclusion in a panel does not guarantee appointment unless the relevant rules explicitly provide so.3. Validity of Appointments Made from the Panel After the High Court's Judgment:The Supreme Court considered the appointments made after the High Court's judgment in Anil Kumar's case. The Court noted that the appointments made before the issuance of the circular on 2.7.1989, even if against the law laid down in Anil Kumar's case, were not to be disturbed due to the equities that had arisen in favor of those appointees. The Court decided to retain the services of those who had been appointed and were continuing in service by virtue of stay orders issued by the courts.4. Discrimination Between Appointed and Non-appointed Candidates:The appellants contended that the Government's decision to retain the appointed candidates while not appointing others from the same panel was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the appointed and non-appointed candidates formed distinct classes. The Court held that the State's decision to protect the appointments of those already appointed was fair and reasonable, given the equities involved, and did not violate Article 14.5. Relief for Candidates Not Appointed but Included in the Panel:The Supreme Court addressed the grievances of candidates who were included in the panel but not appointed. The Court directed that these candidates could apply for consideration under the new rules and suggested that the State Government consider relaxing the age bar in suitable cases to minimize their hardship. The Court remitted specific cases back to the High Court to determine the seniority and eligibility of the appellants vis-a-vis those who had been appointed, directing the State to appoint such candidates if found eligible.Separate Judgments Delivered:- Civil Appeal Nos. 3218/91, 3219/91, 3220/91: The appellants were allowed to continue in service with continuity but without back wages.- CA Nos. 3216/1991, 2082/1991, and WP (C) No. 911/1991: The appeals were dismissed, and the non-appointed candidates were directed to apply under new rules.- Civil Appeal No. 2082/91: Allowed, and the appellants were to continue in service.- CA No. 4254/1991: Allowed, directing consideration of the appellants for appointment.- Civil Appeal No. 3217/91: Remitted to the High Court for determination of seniority and eligibility for appointment.The Supreme Court's judgment provided a comprehensive resolution to the various issues, balancing the equities and legal principles involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
