IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15743 of 2009 1.Niraj Kumar Paswan son of Sri Ram Ashish Paswan, resident of village Pidhauli, P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai 2.Bablu Kumar Paswan, son of Late Tanik Paswan, resident of village Ratgo Karari, P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai 3.Hare Ram Paswan, son of Sri Balo Paswan, resident of village Bishar Asthan (Naya Tola) P.S. Fulwaria, District- Begusarai …….Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.District Superintendent of Education, District- Begusarai 4.Block Development Officer, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai 5.Block Education Extension Officer, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai 6.Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Ridhauli, Block- Teghra, District- Begusarai 7.Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Ridhauli, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai 8.Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Nipania Madhurapur, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai 9.Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Nipania Madhurapur, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai 10.Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Fulwaria, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai 11.Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Fulwaria, Block Teghra, District- Begusarai …………Respondents ----------- 3. 28/10/2010 Grievances of the three petitioners are the same but the fact situations of their cases are slightly different. Their grievances are that on account of termination of services of the concerned incumbents due to their having less than 45% marks in the Intermediate, petitioners were appointed on 2 the resultant vacancies after due procedure and they continued for four years. However, on account of orders passed by this Court, services of the said incumbents were restored, as a result of which petitioners became surplus and therefore their services were terminated. The three petitioners moved the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by Annexure-6 with the supplementary affidavit, allowed appeal of petitioner no.3 as vacancy of the category was available and directed for his adjustment against the vacancy. In respect of petitioner no.1, it is stated that his appeal is still pending with the Appellate Authority. However, in respect of petitioner no.2, his appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 15.5.2010 on the ground that no vacancy of Scheduled Caste category was available in the Panchayat to which petitioner belonged. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a report of the Block Education Officer dated 25.5.2010 wherein he has reported that vacancies are available of Scheduled Caste category. This report bears 3 the date subsequent to the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the case of petitioner no.2. Therefore, naturally, this report could not be considered by the Appellate Authority. He also submits that since admittedly, vacancy of the general category was available, case of petitioner no.2 could be considered against the same if he was qualified and eligible for his appointment as general category candidate. Since the report of the Block Education Officer is of a subsequent date, this Court does not feel it necessary to quash the order passed by the Appellate Authority in respect of respondent no.2. However, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to take into account the report of the Block Education Officer dated 25.5.2010 to ascertain the vacancy and consider the case of petitioner no.2 afresh. The Appellate Authority shall also dispose of the appeal of petitioner no.1 which is said to be pending with it till now in the light of vacancy available in the Block. It is made clear that the candidates similarly circumstanced should be given equal treatment by the Appellate Authority in 4 consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)