IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5812 of 1994 1. Ram Kumar Mandal, son of Sri Basudeo Mandal, resident of Village Bhen, P.S. Madhepura, Distt. Madhepura. 2. Yogendra Narain Mandal, son of late Parmeshwari Mandal, resident of Village Bhen, P.S. Madhepura, District Madhepura. 3. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, S/o Shri Saryug Prasad Mandal, Resident of Village Mathiondha, P.S. Bihariganj, District Madhepura. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Madhepura. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura having its office at Madhepura, Distt. Madhepura. ----------- Respondents ----------- 3 24.6.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioners could succeed in getting a direction from this Court for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the district of Madhepura only if they could show anyone junior to them in the panel had been appointed. The pointed reference made by Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners towards the impugned order, would not serve any purpose, inasmuch as, the petitioners, in order to get benefit of the observations made in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Savita Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2 1994(1)PLJR 62 (SC), had to demonstrate that in pursuance of an advertisement on the post of teacher, there was a panel in which the name of the petitioners had figured and from such panel any person placed below the petitioners had been appointed. That is how, this Court would read the judgment of the Savita Prasad (supra), wherein, the Apex Court had directed the State Government to consider the case of such persons whose juniors have been appointed by leaving them out. From reading of the writ application, it is however difficult to find out as to whether the petitioners had ever been able to ascertain the names of the juniors, who were allegedly appointed in preference to them. The repeated reference made to some appointment from a panel of a subsequent year would not necessarily mean that they were junior to the petitioners. The petitioners have an onus to prove this aspect that someone junior to them in the same panel was appointed. As this aspect of the matter was neither clearly raised nor conclusively 3 decided by the authority, this Court would remit the matter back to the Director, Primary Education to reconsider the whole issue. This Court would thus give liberty to the petitioners to file their self-contained separate representation pointing out the specific names of the persons who were placed below them in the panel and yet appointed so as to make their case referable and applicable as was observed and directed in the case of Savitri Prasad (supra). The Director, Primary Education shall dispose of the aforesaid representation by a speaking order without being prejudiced by the impugned order dated 10.2.1994. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioners would be in a position to demonstrate that there was a panel prepared for reserved category in which the petitioners were above the persons who were appointed on the basis of the reservation, the Director will, in that event, be not guided by the opinion of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department as mentioned in the impugned 4 order. Since the petitioners have been waiting for their appointment for last 26 years, this Court would expect that the Director of the Primary Education will dispose of such representations of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)