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
received their training. In our order of 19th
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
responsibility, by our order dated 24th February,
2011, while relieving Justice V.A. Mohta, we JUDGMENT 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
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
order dated 13th 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,
JUDGMENTspecial 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.
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.
Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13th 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
informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts JUDGMENT 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
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.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN) New Delhi Dated: July 18,2013.