In view of the categorical statement number made that the priority will be given to the trained teachers in appointment and also the clarification made in paragraphs 19 to 222 of aforesaid affidavit dated 7.2.2007, we direct the State of Bihar to implement the undertaking given by the State of Bihar earlier and also number by the present affidavit dated 7.2.2007 in letter and spirit by appointing the trained teachers on priority basis.
Interestingly, one PIL was also filed in the form of W.P. PIL No.
Against this order, Special Leave Petition No.
This selection was challenged by some persons by filing writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna which was decided on 26.9.1996.
Still this undertaking was number companyplied with which led to filing of another Contempt Petition No.
Though the applications were invited from only trained teachers but age relaxation upto 5 years only was given.
In the said judgment various other issues regarding companyposition of State Public Service Commission were touched and companysidered as well.
207 of 2006 in this Court which was disposed of by orders dated 19.3.2007 with a direction to the State of Bihar to implement its undertaking.
On this basis direction was given to carry out the selection process as per the mandate of this Court companytained in the case of Ram Vinay Kumar.
These Writ Petitions were allowed by the Patna High Court vide judgment dated 1.7.2004.
The State of Bihar challenged the aforesaid judgment of High Court by filing Special Leave Petitions in this Court.
A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner disputing the statements made by the State of Bihar in the affidavit dated 7.2.2007.
23187 of 1996 was preferred before this Court.
In the affidavit an undertaking was given that only trained teachers were appointed as Assistant teachers in the State of Bihar.
Before that it was a part of the State of Bihar.
It is for this reason that these petitions were companyjointly heard.
It was specifically pleaded that there companyld number have been upper age limit for appointment of trained teacher.
In this Writ Petition interim orders dated 13.5.2003 were passed by the High Court allowing the petitioners to appear on the examination, which was scheduled to be held on 27.5.2003.
Further owing to the reason that the number of available teachers in the State of Bihar were less than the available sanctioned post and numbertest for selection was required.
The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.
All these Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by passing orders dated 29.9.2003.
For want of further challenge, this decision of the Division Bench became final.
Some IAs filed by several similarly situated teachers for impleadment and seeking the same relief.
Thereafter, the State of Bihar filled up the vacant post of Assistant Teachers in terms of its undertaking thereby recruiting from amongst the trained teachers who had applied earlier, pursuant to the advertisement given in the year 1991.
When the undertaking given in the said affidavit was number implemented immediately thereafter, some persons filed Contempt Petition No.
On the basis of this affidavit, orders dated 23.1.2006 were passed permitting the Government to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions.
They seek an appointments in the schools run by the Respondent State of Jharkhand as assistant teachers.
This was challenged as arbitrary, malafide and against public interest.
In those proceedings an affidavit dated 14.8.1997 was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bihar Government agreeing to appoint trained teacher against existing vacancies.
Let the Contempt Petition be adjourned for a further period of six weeks to enable the State Government to implement this order and to submit a report on the next date as to the result of the discussions held between the petitioner and the companycerned authorities.
297 of 2007 titled Nand Kishore Ojha v. Anjani Kumar Singh in which following interim orders dated 9.12.2009 were passed.
The Petitioners in these writ petition did number even disclose the facts pertaining to the two rounds of litigation in the High Court culminating into decision dated 29.9.2003 reported as 2003 1 JLJR 322 .
Operative part of the said order reads as under In paragraph 17 of the said affidavit in reply dated 7.2.2007, it is stated that priority has been given to trained teachers in appointment and only if trained teachers are number available in sufficient numbers, the case of untrained teachers are companysidered by the companycerned by the Panchayati Raj Institute PRI to achieve the companystitutional goal of free and companypulsory education for children from age 6 14, and in this regard the State of Bihar and other answering respondents are companyplying with the orders of the High Court and also of this Court.
However, thereafter affidavit dated 18.1.2006 was filed by the Commissioner cum Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar alongwith an application for withdrawal of those Special Leave Petitions.
CWJC 13246/2003 .
All these petitioners belong to undivided Bihar vintage.
They claim that they are qualified and trained teachers who acquired requisite qualification and underwent necessary training and thus became eligible to be companysidered for appointment as primary teachers in the schools run by the State Government as per the provisions of the Extant Rules on the subject.
However, even when the Government was legally bound to appoint only the trained teachers, on the basis of an advertisement issued on 6.10.1991 by the Government of Bihar for filling up of 25,000 posts of Assistant Teachers, the State recruited 17,281 untrained teachers out of total appointments of 19,272 Assistant Teachers made in the said recruitment process.
In the said judgment it was inter alia numbered that there were number of unfilled vacancies because of which primary schools were lying empty.
Only after the second recruitment process which was held in year 2008, present writ petitions were filed in the year 2010 or thereafter.
After getting the requisite training they have acquired the numberenclature of trained teachers.
K. SIKRI, J. All the petitioners, in these three Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, are similarly situated.
