LexSABITA PRASAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SABITA PRASAD AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND·ORS. DECEMBER 8, 1992 [L.M. SHARMA, CJ., AND DR. A.S. ANAND, J.) SerVice Law-4'aneHersons on the panel have no indefeasible right to app()intnient .. C · Assistant Teachers-Preparation of district wise panels-Panels prepared district-wise declared unconstitutional-Consequential · Government's circular cancdling the panels without disturbing the appoint- ments already made--C/aim for appointment by non-appointed teachers on ptine~e/d the panel was in the naturepf only eligibility list prepared without D any process of selection· and without having co-relation 'to existing or an- ticipated vacancies-Such a panel does not confer any vested or indefeasible right; on teachers to. be appointed-Training of teachers at State expenses merely.confers eligibility and not vested right to be appointed-Appointed and non-appointed teachers formed separate and distinct classes-Held Government's order saving appointments already made is not violative of E Artide 14 of the Constitution. · For appointing teachers in the primary schools the State of Bihar was preparing district-wise panels. By its judgment in Ani/ Kumar v. Chief Secretary, 1987 Patna Law Journal Reports 846, the High Court of Patna F declared the panels prepared on district-wise basis as unconstitutional but directed that the appointments already made from the panels should not be disturbed. Further, the State was restrained from making any further appointments from the panels prepared for the different districts. As a follow up action of the judgment the State of Bihar issued instruc- tions on 1.3.1989 staying further appointments from the existing panels G and by its circul~r dated 2.7.1989 cancelled the existing panels without disturbing the appointments already made. After the judgment of the High Court and till the Government circular dated 2.7 .1989 was issued some appointments were ma~e but thereafter no further appointments were made the e;xisting panels. Those teachers who were not appointed in spite H of being on the panel and· some others filed various writ petitions in the 438 SABITA PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR 439 Patna High Court which were disposed of by different judgments against A which appeals have been preferred in this Court. The appellants (In C.A. No.3216/91) were placed on a panel prepared but were not appointed because. the panel was cancelled. They tiled a petition before the High Court wliich relying upon its earlier judgment quashed the panel including the appointments already made out B of the said panel. The position of the petitioners in the connected petition (911/91) is akin to that of the appellants because they also remained unappointed on account of cancellation of panel. It was contended on behalf of the non-appointed teachers (1) that the teachers empanelled have acquired a vested right to be appointed as and when the vacancies C arose and the cancellation of the panel took away their accrued rights which was not permissible; the panel was required to remain effective till it was exhausted and its cancellation was arbitrary; (2) the Government's circular saving the appointments already made was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the distinction between those 'appointed' and D those 'waiting appointments' was irrational; (3) the appellants having been trained at State's expense have acquired a valuable right to be appointed. On behalf of the State it was contended (1) that empanelment is only a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment and empanelment E itself cannot be equated with 'selection' creating a vested right in aq empanellist to be appointed; (2) the panel prepared was no more than arrangement of the particulars of the candidates and such a list could not be equated with even a fixed term panel which under certain conditions creates some right in those empanelled to seek appointment during the F life of the panel; (3) the training was designed to confer only eligibility for consideration and it did not create any vested right to appointments; and (4) the appointed teachers have acquired some vested right to continue i~ service, but no right was created in the non-appointees by merely being brought on the panel; the distinction between appointees and non-appoin- tees, who formed two different class, was not violative of Article 14 of the G Constitution. The counsel for the State of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.