IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7573 of 2002 1. SK.MANSOOR ALAM, S/O SHRI SK NOORUDDIN, R/O VILLAGE-DHOBANI, P.O.-DANIYAL PERSAUNA, P.S.-SATHI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHERS/INCHARGE HEAD MASTER, KAMAL SAH HIGH SCHOOL AT AND P.O.-NAUTAN, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 2. PRABHU NATH PANDEY, S/O LATE GOPAL PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE-HARDIA, P.O.- ARERAJ, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, RAILWAY PRAVESHIKA VIDYALAYA, NARKATIAGANJ, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. ………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. and Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC-15, Bipin Kr., AC to SC-15, Arjun Prasad, AC to SC-15 ----------- 4 27.07.2009 Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that similar issues as raised by these petitioners in this writ application have already been considered and decided by a judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 1523 of 1984 reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 95. He submits that the findings and ratio of the judgment squarely covers the cases of the petitioners and, therefore, the writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with the said judgment in this case also. He submits that recently also this Court has on two occasions passed the similar judgments relying upon the said earlier judgment vide order dated - 2 - 17.3.2008 passed in CWJC No. 697 of 2006 and order dated 15.12.2008 passed in CWJC No. 9787 of 1997. Learned counsel for the State submits that the authorities may be directed to examine the cases of the petitioners and the ratio laid down by this Court in the said judgments for its application in this case also. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision on the basis of which Annexure-1 was passed was held ultra vires by earlier judgment itself and, therefore, that order is not sustainable in law. Since the matter has been listed under the category ‘Zero’ for its disposal in the light of the said judgments, this Court is not applying its mind independently to the issue raised in the matter. Therefore, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the above three judgments of this Court and if they find that the grounds for issue of Annexure-1 in the matter of the petitioners are not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in - 3 - the earlier judgments, they shall issue necessary orders for canceling or recalling Annexure-1 within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Thereafter, they shall also pass consequential orders in respect of the petitioners in accordance with the said judgments of this Court within the same time. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)