AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate appears for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The State is represented through Mr. Himanshu Kumar Akela, learned Advocate.
The writ petition was filed seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities under the Education Department, Bihar, Patna, as well as the authorities under the Bihar Public Service Commission to extend and grant 5 marks per year, subject to a maximum of 25 marks, as weightage to the petitioners, who worked as Guest Teachers in the final result published in relation to Advertisement No. 22 of 2024, in the light of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 2270 of 2024, as also in the light of the departmental direction issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, vide letter issued under Memo No. 1470 dated 31.05.2024.
The petitioners are said to have been working as Guest Teachers in different subjects, imparting their services in different schools across the State of Bihar. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Advocate that had the petitioners been extended the weightage for their work as Guest Teachers, as has been extended to other Guest Teachers in the light of the judgment/order dated 29.05.2024 passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 2270 of 2024, they would certainly have secured more marks than the cut-off marks prescribed in terms of Advertisement No. 22 of 2024.
Learned Advocate for the Commission, however, apprised this Court that there is clear stipulation, especially in Clause 4 of Advertisement No. 22 of 2024, which explicitly incorporates the mandate of Resolution No. 2374 dated 06.07.2007 and Letter No. 6706 dated 01.10.2008 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar. The aforesaid stipulations clearly state that it is mandatory for candidates to secure the minimum qualifying marks, failing which they shall be out of the examination process.
After having heard the parties; and without delving into further submission, this Court notices that identical issue has come up for consideration in CWJC No. 7963 of 2021, wherein the Court, having found no merit in the application, dismissed the writ petition. The challenge before the learned Division Bench in LPA No. 347 of 2022 was also negated, and the order of the learned Single Judge stood affirmed. It would be pertinent to quote the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the learned Division Bench, which are quoted hereinunder:
“No doubt, the domain knowledge in the subject is like wattle and daub for an incumbent to the post of Professors but, the research experience and past experience also form an important part to test the competence of a candidate.
Though the learned Single Judge has not taken note of this aspect of the matter viz. that with the qualifying marks already having been fixed by the Commission, Note-4 was an unnecessary impediment in the way of more experienced persons who would have to first excel in their domain knowledge in order to take advantage of the experience earned as contractual employees, which might be of some disadvantage to some, but looking at the entire scheme of things, it appears that with the qualifying marks and the Commission fixing minimum marks over and above which the candidates would be called for interview would dovetail into each other. If there is any spill-over, it would only be minor.
We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and we find that the strength of the argument that fresh entrants also should be given an equal platform with the experienced once makes the scale dip deeper in favour of the fresh entrants and thus in favour of Note-4 in the Advertisement.
We, thus reckon that the learned Single Judge was justified in employing the aforenoted logic in testing the validity of Note-4 and we find no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal stands dismissed.”
Having gone through the orders passed by a Bench of this Court, as also by the learned Division Bench of this Court, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.