IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9295 of 2007 1. Sri Bhagwan Pal, son of late Kashinath Prasad, resident of Village Bhelma, P.S. Kudra, Dist. Kaimuar. 2. Vishnu Shankram, son of late Govindchari Roy, resident of Village+P.O. Peharap, P.S. Sahar, Dist. Bhojpur. 3. Amarkant Panday, son of late Hiralal Panday, resident of Village Fakrabad, P.S. Chainpur, Dist. Kaimur. 4. Ravindra Nath Chaubey, son of late Vikrama Chaubey, R/o Vill.+P.O. Farabad, P.S. Kudra, Dist. Kaimur. 5. Radha Krishna, son of late Hira Prasad Sah, R/o Village Kekradha, P.S. Mohania, Dist. Kaimur. 6. Chandra Bhanu Pratap Singh, son of late Sheo Kumar Singh, resident of Village Dalipur, P.S. Bhabua, Dist. Kaimur. 7. Srikant Kumar Gupta, son of late Ramanand Prasad, resident of Vill.+P.S. Belaon, Dist. Kaimur. 8. Kashi Nath Singh, son of late Thakur Prasad Singh, Resident of Vill.+P.S. Bhagwanmpur, Dist. Kaimur. 9. Binod Kumar Tiwary, son of late Vindhyachal Tewari, R/o Vill. Rajpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Dist. Kaimur. 10. Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi, Son of late Shiv Pujan Tripathi, R/o Village Sion, P.S. Bhabhua, Dist. Kaimur. 11. Satyandra Kumar, son of late Kapildeo Singh, R/o Vill. Machanhatta, P.S. Durgawati, Dist. Kaimur. ----- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Kaimur, Bhabhua, through its Chairman. 5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua). -------- Respondents ----------------- 6 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the appointment of the petitioners on compassionate ground has already been made on the post of Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher, this Court would find no reason to now direct the Authorities for further compassion, inasmuch 2 as, this aspect has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar reported in 2010(3)PLJR 294, wherein, it was held that a recommendation of District Compassionate Appointment Committee is not binding on the Appointing Authority and that such appointment can be made on whatever vacancies are available. Mr. Singh, however, would inform this Court that the issue has now been pending before the Apex Court. It goes without saying that if the Apex Court takes a decision which may help the case of the petitioners, they will also have liberty to move this Court again by filing a fresh writ application. With the aforementioned observations and liberty, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)