TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etters Patent Appeal whereby the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. The writ petition was filed by the present appellants. Factual background so far as undisputed is essentially as follows: About 2000 persons were appointed as primary teachers in various districts of Bihar. As legality of the appointments was questioned in various forums, enquiries were conducted. Orders were passed terminating the services of the teachers including the appellants who had been appointed during the relevant period. Such orders of termination were challenged before the High Court, which by judgment dated 11.8.1989 directed to take up the appointment of teachers in elementary schools in various districts by inviting applications from the wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally given to them by the District Superintendent of Education but shall receive emoluments and other benefits by dint of their selection and appointment in accordance with law. Said judgment of the High court and connected judgments were assailed before this Court in several special leave to appeal petitions. By order dated 7.2.1991, they were disposed of inter alia with the following directions: In these circumstances instead of taking into account the contradictory conclusions reached in these cases we have heard counsel for the parties. We notice that the High Court's direction to the State to hold afresh selection has become final against the State inasmuch as the State has not challenged the order. We direct that within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitial appointment and were, therefore, entitled to relaxation of age in terms of the judgment passed by the High Court earlier and affirmed by this Court. This plea was turned down on the ground that what was relevant for consideration related to the age at the time of initial appointment and not making of the application;(3) As regards writ petitioner No.24, he was under age at the time of appointment. He was permitted to file a representation before the Director of Primary Education and the High Court ordered that his case would be considered afresh;(4)In respect of writ petitioners Nos. 9 and 17, it was noted that they were refused absorption on the ground that they had not made any application in response to advertisement issued pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore this Court to give a definite finding on that aspect. What happens when a cut off date is fixed for fulfilling the prescribed qualification relating to age by a candidate for appointment and the effect of any non-prescription has been considered by this Court in several cases. The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court (See Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors.v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1997 (4) SCC 18, Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000 (5) SCC 262 and Jasbir Rani and ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2002 (1) SCC 124) are as follows: (1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion that they were overaged. This was pointedly urged before the High Court (both before learned Single Judge and Division Bench). But the same was not considered. Learned counsel for the State Government in opposition submitted that the appellants had taken different stands before the High Court and it is not open to them to take different stands before this Court. He, however, accepted that in the memorandum of appeal before Division Bench age question was raised. Learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis as if the writ petitioners had staked their claim based on the panel which was prepared in 1984-85. This is evident from the following observations: The petitioners have filed the present applications for their appointment to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2002 AIR SCW 4939) the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
