IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15475 of 2009 1. OM PRAKASH KUMAR S/O SRI RAJA RAM MAHTO R/O MOHALLA- ANISABAD (POST OFFICE LANE), P.S. GARDANIBAG, DISTT.- PATNA-----------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ARTS CULTURAL & YOUTH DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA--------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 26.4.2011 Respondents State have been granted indulgence to file counter affidavit in this writ application way back on23.2.2010 but for the reasons best known they have failed to file any counter affidavit till today. In the meantime a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed bringing on record a decision of learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Randhir Kumar Singh & others vrs. The State of Bihar & others which was CWJC No. 15463 of 2007 decided on 10.3.2011. This order is annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit. Submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that even this petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher/Instructor and his name was recommended by the Staff Selection Commission as far back on 11.4.2007 but for no apparent reason why the respondent authority has not issued any appointment letter in his favour. In the present case the Court does not have the benefit of the stand of the State but from perusal of annexure-8 it is evident that a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and a stand was taken that in view of coming of 2006 Rules for - 2 - appointment of teachers no steps have been taken for filling up the posts. The Court taking note of such a submission came to the conclusion that the advertisement issued much earlier before coming of the rules and the recommendation made thereto cannot be governed by a subsequent rule coming into effect as the same will be prospective in nature and not retrospective. The Court went ahead and gave a direction upon the State respondent authority to issue appointment letters in favour of those petitioners within a time frame of four weeks. The case of the present petitioner is on identical footing and he is entitled to the benefit of appointment which has been extended by the High Court in similar circumstance as to the petitioners of CWJC No. 15463 of 2007. Since the petitioners had not been offered letters of appointment in the circumstances taken note of, in the earlier writ, which was found to be erroneous by learned Single Judge, the present writ application stands allowed and the respondent authority is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)