1. 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 appearing for the State of Bihar, has raised some issues, which need to be clarified.

7. The first issue relates to the claim of one Shri Abhinesh Kumar, s/o. Shri Babua Nand Pandey, that his case has not been considered by the learned Special Officer on account of the fact that he was not a party to the proceedings. On 13th July, 2011, Mr. Rama Murti, learned senior Advocate, submitted that Shri Abhinesh Kumar had, in fact, been impleaded as a party and, accordingly, we had directed the State of Bihar to consider his place in the seniority list as well. Today, we are informed by Mr. Kailash Vasdev that his position stands at serial number 62,551, which is far beyond the number of vacancies to be filled up. Accordingly, nothing further is required to be said at the present, as far as his claim is concerned.

8. The second issue which has been raised by Mr. Kailash Vasdev is with regard to the examination of the certificates and other documents that may be produced by the candidate concerned at the time of counselling and appointment. In the event, during scrutiny it is found that any of the documents do not conform to the requirements, the concerned authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate steps regarding the said candidate.

9. The third issue raised was with regard to the candidates, who are to retire at the age of 60 by 31st January, 2012, within which period they would have attained the age of 60 years. It is no doubt true that this matter has been pending for a long time and there is possibility of some candidates being adversely affected on account of such delay, but at the same time we cannot also overlook the fact that a person cannot be allowed the benefits of appointment without serving the institution for at least some length of time. Accordingly, the cases of the candidates who will be retiring on or before 31st January, 2012, need not be considered for appointment.

10. Fourthly, the Special Recruitments Rules, which have been framed by the State for the purpose of appointment of primary teachers in these vacancies, shall be deemed to have been modified to the extent of the directions which have been issued by this Court from time to time and also by this order.

11. There is yet another group of candidates, who claim to be adversely affected by the deliberations and the findings of the learned Special Officer while preparing the list of eligible candidates. It has been claimed by some of the candidates that their institutions have been shown to be unrecognized/fake, whereas from the very same institution other candidates have been found eligible, although, this has not been admitted by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, we feel if that is the case, such candidates should not be deprived of an opportunity in future. Accordingly, we direct that such candidates will be at liberty to apply to the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for reconsideration of their status and the status of their institutions in respect of which objections have not been considered by the Special Officer. If such representations are made, the same should be considered and disposed of by the Commission, after giving the candidates an opportunity of hearing and placing their cases before the Commission and if it is found that their cases are genuine, the said candidates should be considered in future vacancies, when other vacancies are available, in order of seniority.

12. There is one more issue, which has been raised by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, and that will be evident from the chart which has been submitted by him showing the distribution of posts. According to the requirement of the posts for Physical Education Teachers, the number shown is 1084, whereas in terms of the distribution of the number of vacancies amongst 34,540 candidates, the figure shown is 4,972, which means that there is an excess number of posts vis-à-vis the number of candidates actually required. On the other hand, as far as Urdu as a subject is concerned, while the requirement is 12,862 in terms of the distribution of posts, the figure has been shown as 1,509, which falls far short of the required number of candidates. Accordingly, Mr. Vasdev has submitted that the excess number of posts in the Physical Education Subject category may be allowed to be shifted to the Urdu Subject category, which would compensate the Urdu Subject category to some extent. We feel that there is substance in such a submission and, accordingly, we allow such prayer as well. The State Government will be at liberty to transfer the excess vacancies in the Physical Education Group to the Urdu Subject category.

13. This brings us to the end of a long and arduous journey regarding the appointment of trained teachers in terms of the undertaking given in this Court by the State Government.

14. We would like to express our deep sense of appreciation to Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay for having undertaken the tedious and painstaking exercise of finalising the list of eligible candidates to be considered for filling up the 34,540 vacancies identified during these proceedings.

15. We are informed that nothing remains to be paid to the learned Special Officer on account of his remuneration.

16. We also express our appreciation to all the counsel who appeared and helped us to resolve this matter for the benefit of the large number of trained teachers in Bihar who were waiting for appointment all these years.

17. Let the original Roster, as well as the seniority list, which have been produced before us in a sealed cover and is at present lying in the custody of Mr. Gopal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, be sent to the Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar, for implementing this order. We make it clear that since the Roster, as well as the seniority list, have been prepared in terms of the order of this Court, no Court shall entertain any other objections or applications with regard to the same.

18. The contempt petition, as well as the pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of by this order.