IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12209 of 2010 PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA S/O LATE AMBIKA PRASAD MEHTA R/O LAKSHMIPUR, P.O. & P.S.- BIHARIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA, BIHAR. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHEPURA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA ----------- 03. 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The reason for the petitioner to file the writ application is because by a common recommendation the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had made for appointment of all those candidates, whose case was considered under the compassionate appointment head. Name of the petitioner has also figured in that list, which is evident from Annexure-2. However, when the matter came down finally for appointment, four persons came to be appointed on Class-III post. Petitioner was directed to approach the authorities for his accommodation as a Panchayat Teacher on the ground that no vacancies are available for the respondents to offer. Counsel for the petitioner has very categorically asserted in para 8 of the writ application with regard to availability of the post, based on information he has obtained. This fact has not been controverted in the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf 2 of the respondents. Obviously, respondents have something to hide or they do not want to speak truth with regard to such assertions. In view of the same the writ application is disposed of with direction upon respondent No3, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa, to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order with a rider that if what has been stated in paragraph No.8 of the writ application is correct, then consequential order will flow in favour of the petitioner. The writ application is disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)