JUDGMENT

DR A. S. ANAND

( 1 ) THE controversy in all these cases revolves around the appointment of Assistant-teachers in the primary schools and the fallout of circular-letter, dated 2/07/1989, issued by the State of Bihar. The questions being identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Before dealing with the individual cases, a reference to the historical background would be necessary.

( 2 ) IN the State of Bihar, appointments of teachers to primary schools were being made since 1970 on the basis of residence of the candidates in a particular district, the objective being to cater to the educational needs of the districts by providing men and resources from that district itself. Advertisements were issued in different districts, inviting applications from the residents of the district having requisite qualifications, for appointment as Assistant-teachers in the primary schools within the jurisdiction of District Education Superintendent. The minimum qualifications and other requirements were set out in the advertisement. Appointments were made from a panel prepared on the basis of qualifications and eligibility of the candidates who had applied for such appointments. The panels were prepared district-wise. The High court ofpatna in Anil Kumar v. Chief secretary declared the panels, prepared on the basis of residence in a particular district, as unconstitutional. The High a court, however, directed that the appointments already made from those panels should not be disturbed but the State was restrained from making any further appointments from the panels, prepared for the different districts. In the wake of the judgment in Anil Kumar case the government of Bihar first issued directions to stay further appointments from the panels prepared on district-wise basis on 1/03/1989 and subsequently vide government circular-letter dated 2/07/1989, issued further instructions regarding the appointment of primary teachers. The said letter reads as follows:

( 3 ) AS a consequence of the letter, dated 2/07/1989, the Collectors and the Deputy Commissioners made no further appointments of Assistant-teachers in the primary schools from the existing panels. The aggrieved parties, namely, those who were not appointed in spite of being on the panel and some others filed various writ petitions in the High court of Patna which came to be disposed of by different judgments, against which civil appeals have been filed by special leave in this court. Besides, Writ Petition No. 911 of 1991 has been filed by unappointed trained primary school teachers of District Gopalganj directly in this court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) TAKING note of the aforesaid background, we shall now consider the individual cases.

CIVIL Appeal Nos. 3218 of 1991, 3219 of 1991, 3220 of 1991

( 5 ) APPELLANTS in all these cases were appointed on 16/06/1988 or thereabout in District Siwan, from the panel prepared in 1985. Their appointments were quashed by the High court in writ petition Birendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar filed by some of the non-appointed candidates of the same district, respondents 1 to 26 herein. The appellants have questioned that part of the judgment in Birendra Kumar Srivastava which quashes their appointments through these appeals on special leave being granted. All the appellants are admittedly continuing in service by virtue of the stay orders issued by this Court. Though Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, assailed the judgment of the High court dated 5/11/1990 on various grounds, including the justification for continuation of district-wise selection, which according to him was not aimed at excluding anyone from selection and would be in the interest of local students because according to him the primary school teachers would be conversant with the different dialects in their own districts besides the familiarity with local environment etc. and 9 therefore more suitable t