1982 (2) TMI 319 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Validity of the additional panel prepared in 1973.
3. Authority of the Director of Public Instruction in preparing the panel.
4. Eligibility of respondents-writ petitioners for appointment.
5. Appointment of candidates in different circles.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The appellants contended that the writ petition should fail as some of the petitioners had already been appointed to the posts of primary teachers, relying on the precedent set in Ganesh Nayek & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows joint applications if they arise out of common questions of law and fact, applies to writ proceedings. The court emphasized that dismissing the entire writ petition on technical grounds would be against the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The court referenced Salil Kumar Datta J.'s decision in N. N. Singh & Ors. v. General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works & Ors., which held that if the claims are severable, the petition should not fail entirely if some petitioners are disentitled to relief.

2. Validity of the Additional Panel Prepared in 1973:
The appellants argued that the respondents-writ petitioners were included in an additional panel prepared in 1973, which was not authorized. The court examined the records and found that a single panel consisting of 2231 candidates was prepared, which included names from two lists dated July 27, 1973, and July 29, 1973. The court held that the inclusion of names in two lists does not constitute two separate panels and that the Director of Public Instruction referred to one panel in his communication.

3. Authority of the Director of Public Instruction in Preparing the Panel:
The appellants contended that the Director of Public Instruction had no authority to prepare an additional panel and that the respondents-writ petitioners were not selected by the Advisory-cum-selection Committee. The court found this contention meritless, stating that the Advisory Committee assists the Director, but the final panel is prepared by the Director of Public Instruction. The court noted that there was no evidence or allegation of malafide or bias against the Director. The court also found no record to show that the Advisory Committee did not select the 199 candidates included in the list dated July 29, 1973.

4. Eligibility of Respondents-Writ Petitioners for Appointment:
The appellants argued that the respondents-writ petitioners were not eligible for appointment as they were not selected by the Advisory Committee. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the District School Board, having appointed these candidates in deputation vacancies from time to time, could not now challenge their eligibility. The court emphasized that the Advisory Committee's role is to assist, and the final authority lies with the Director of Public Instruction.

5. Appointment of Candidates in Different Circles:
The appellants contended that candidates approved for one circle should not be appointed in another circle. The court did not find it necessary to decide on this point, stating that appointments should be made in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the Rules, as directed by the learned judge.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the directions of the learned judge to consider and absorb the respondents-writ petitioners in permanent vacancies. The court found no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants and emphasized the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in its judgment. There was no order as to costs.