Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 1510
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Nand Kishore Ojha - Petitioner
Versus
Anjani Kumar Singh - Respondent
Contempt Petition (C) No. 297 of 2007 IN SLP(C) No. 22882 of 2004
Decided On : 13-10-2011
For the Petitioner IA 383, 385, 389:Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR 401, 406, 441, 454, Aarti Upadhyay, Advocates. 455, 459, 461, 502, 507, 509, 515, 516, 518, 520, 522, 523, 540 & 637-639.
For the Respondent:Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Adv. IA NOS.390-393, 437 N.N. Jha, Adv. 466, 537, 558 & 619, Ashok K. Sharma, D.K. Mishra, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR IN IA 3, 385, Vishnu Sharma, AOR 415-425 Ms. Anupama Sharma, Amar Jyoti Sharma, Anil Kumar Tandale, Shantanu Sagar, T. Mahipal, AOR IA 397, 398, 436, 442, Yugal Kishore Prasad, Adv. 452/09 Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR IA No.399/09 Ms. Vandana Sharma, Mahmood Alam, Aruna Gupta, S.K. Sinha, AOR IA 657, 658, 659 of Sridhar Potaraju, AOR 661/11 Kailash Pandey, Gaichu. Li, Ranjeet Singh, Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR IN IA 404, 405, Vijay Kumar, Adv. 433, 434 Pankaj Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR IA 407, 428, 429, Sharad Pandey, Adv. 444 M.M. Singh, S.K. Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Brahmajeet Mishra, Akshay Shukla, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR IA 605, 621, 556, Manoranjan Kr. Jha, Adv. 566 & 410 Pradeep Kar, Tungesh Pandey, B.J. Mishra, Anita Pandey, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Respondent-in-Person Mushtaq Ahmad, Subramonium Prasad, Abhay Kumar, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Santosh Kumar, Rajeev Katiyar, Mushtaq Ahmad, R.K. Ranjan, Amilendra Pandey, Priya Kashyap, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Prem Sunder Jha, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Milind Kumar, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Chandan Ramamurthi, Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ajay Kumar, Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, Praneet Ranjan, AOR IA 491/09 Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Mohd. Shah Nawaz Hasan, Ghanshyam Mishra, B. Upadhyay, Mohan Pandey, AOR IA 439 Md. Izhar Alam, Kazim Ali S., Ajay Mandayal, Mohan Pandey, Brij Bhusan, Arup Banerjee, AOR IA 467 & 471/10 B.K. Choudhary, Ranjit Sharma, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Abhijit Sengupta, AOR IA 469, 472, 476, Dharmendra Kishor, Adv. 544, 474 Pravin Kumar Rai, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Kirti Kumar, Devashish Bharuka, AOR IA 551, 552, 554, 559, Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Adv. 565, 567 & 577 Chandan Kumar, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Ritu Upadhyay, Shama Sharma, Chandrashekhar, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, AOR IN IA 486/09 Ajit Kumar, Ajay Kumar Singh, Prahlad Kumar, S.K. Sabharwal, AOR I.A. NOS.556&564 A.N. Singh, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Prashant Chaudhary, Shashi Bhushan Kumar, P.V. Yogeswaran, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Amit Pawan, Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR IA 514 Rahul Singh, K. Sita Rama Rao, Shree Pal Singh, Ram Ekbal Roy, M.P. Jha, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. IA 485, 487 & Sanjeev Kumar, 649/2000 Jitender Pandey, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Jitendra Kumar, Subhro Sanyal, Revathy Raghavan, Gaurav Agrawal, Mohit Kumar Shah, Kumud Lata Das, AOR IN IA 655/11 K. Rama Murti, Sr. Adv. Sunil Malhotra, Abhishek Puri, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, P.N. Puri, AOR IN IA 542 & 476, Dharmendra Kishor, Kirti Kumar, S.N. Rai, K.N. Rai, Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Ravi Ranjan, B.K. Satija, AOR IA No. 664, 665, 660/11, M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. Ajay Rai, Debasis Misra, D.K. Thakur, Sushil Kumar, Adv. Devendra Jha, Abhishek Atrey, Anil Kumar Jha, Samrendra Kumar, Sharad Chandra Jha, Abhishek, AOR IA 601, 602, 603/09, P. Chandra, J.K. Jha, Amit Kumar, R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mohit Kumar Shah, Niranjan Kumar, Aabhas Parimal, Goodwill Indeevar, AOR I.A. 465, 468, 493, C.P. Yadav, Adv. 535 & 538/09, R.C. Aggarwal, Syeed Md. Rafi, IN IA NO.451, Kamalendra Mishra, A.K. Singh, M. Tripathi, Ashok Kr. Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Intervenor :Ashok Kumar Tiwary, R.D. Upadhyay, Firasat Ali, Ram Swarup Sharma, Advocates.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Published for recruitment of primary school - Certain incongruities had been pointed - Petitions had been filed against the State of Bihar, raising issues relating to recruitment of teachers in primary schools - It was brought to our notice on account of changes in the policy, trained teachers who were in place at the time - When undertakings were given, could not be accommodated – Court had passed orders directing trained teachers who at one time were less than the number of vacant posts, should be given appointment in the vacancies that were available - There was some discrepancy as to the number of vacancies available as against the number of teachers to be accommodated – Court adopted a figure from an advertisement which had been published for recruitment of primary school teachers and took number of available vacancies – Held, Court would like to express our deep sense of appreciation to Justice for having undertaken the tedious and painstaking exercise of finalising list of eligible candidates to be considered for filling up – Court also express our appreciation to all counsel who appeared and helped us to resolve this matter for benefit of the large number of trained teachers waiting for appointment all these years - Produced before us in a sealed cover and is at present lying in custody - Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, be sent - Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar, for implementing this order – Court make it clear that since the Roster, as well as the seniority list, have been prepared in terms of the order of Court - Court shall entertain any other objections or applications with regard to the same - Applications are also disposed
ORDER :
Contempt Petition (C) No.297 of 2007, filed in S.L.P. (C) No.22882 of 2004, arose out of an alleged breach of undertaking said to have been given on 18th January, 2006, by the State of Bihar and the order passed on the basis thereof on 23rd January, 2006, by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No.22882-22888 of 2004. As we have indicated in our order dated 9th January, 2009, a number of writ petitions had been filed against the State of Bihar, raising issues relating to recruitment of teachers in primary schools. At one stage, it was brought to our notice that on account of changes in the policy, trained teachers who were in place at the time when the undertakings were given, could not be accommodated. Accordingly, we had passed orders directing that the trained teachers who at one time were less than the number of vacant posts, should be given appointment in the vacancies that were available. Subsequently, however, there was some discrepancy as to the number of vacancies available as against the number of teachers to be accommodated. Accordingly, we adopted a figure from an advertisement which had been published for recruitment of primary school teachers and took the number of available vacancies to be 34,540.
2. We had directed that the said vacancies be filled up with the said number of trained teachers as a one-time measure to give effect to the undertakings which had been given on 18th January, 2006 and 23rd January, 2006. Accordingly, without issuing a Rule of Contempt, we had directed that the said vacancies be filled up from amongst the trained teachers, who are available in order of seniority.
3. Subsequently, however, 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 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.
4. As a result, the State of Bihar, was directed to bring out a fresh list in terms of the orders which we had passed on 9th December, 2009 and 12th May, 2010, in order of seniority, incorporating the names of each and every candidate and the category to which they belonged. As the lists prepared were disputed, we thought it fit that in order to resolve the anomalies, a neutral person should be entrusted with the work of settling the list over which the dispute had arisen and, accordingly, by the said order we 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 of the responsibility of acting as the Special Officer, we 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.
5. Subsequently, several sessions were held by the learned Special Officer, at which the parties and the institutions were duly represented by counsel and His Lordship, thereafter, submitted a finalized list of the eligible candidates in order of seniority, taking into consideration the various institutions and the certificates produced by the candidates concerned. On the basis of the said list, we had requested the State of Bihar to prepare a Roster for the purpose of reservation of seats according to the different reserved categories. Such exercise has also been undertaken and completed and the list prepared in terms of the Roster has also been produced in the Court in a sealed cover.
6. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel
