IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2225 of 2007 1.SANJITA KUMARI, D/O SRI RAM BALAK CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE-CHAKDAULAT, P.S. UJIYARPUR, DISTT.SAMASTIPUR. 2.DHANANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, S/O LATE SRI ANANDI DEVI, S/O SRI BUDHHA DEO MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE+P.O-PATSA, P.S. HASNAPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR. 3.ARVIND KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI RAM SAGAR ROY, R/O VILLAGE+P.O CHAPTA, P.S UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT.SAMASTIPUR. 4.PRABHASH KUMAR RAY, S/O LATE YUGESHWAR RAY, R/O VILLAGE.TAMKA, P.S.BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT.SAMASTIPUR. 5.RANJIT KUMAR CHAUDHARY, S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE-GARHSISAI, P.S. VIDYAPATI NAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 6. MOHAMAD SHAMIM AHMAD, S/O LATE MD. ABBAS SAIKI, R/O VILLAGE-MIRJAPUR, P.S.BAHERA, O.P. ALI NAGAR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 7.PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE SARYU NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SRI RAMPUR, P.S.HATHAURI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 8.RAJESH KUMAR S/O LATE SRI BINDESHWARI SAHU, R/O VILLAGE+P. MAUJI, P.S. HASANPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 9.BHAVENDRA KUMAR BHAVESH, S/O LATE SRI BALESHWAR YADAV, R/O VILLAGE. TEKUNA MATH, P.S.ROSARA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 10.RAJESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE-HARPUR ALLOTH, P.S.MUSARI GHARARI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 11.VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE LAXAMAN PRASAD KUSHWAHA, R/O VILLAGE+P.O. MOTIPUR, P.S.TAJPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 12.RAJ KISHORE THAKUR, S/O LATE SUKHDEO THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-MANARAYA TOL YOGIYA, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. …………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR. 5.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 01.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the judgment of the full bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors vs Rajeev Ram, reported in 2010(3) PLJR 294, the petitioner no. 2 to 12 can be appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak/Prakhand Shikshak. Counsel for the State would submit that the respondents will have no difficulty in considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak/Prakhand Shikshak, if petitioner no. 2 to 12, alike petitioner no. 1 would give their consent for such appointment. Mr. Singh, would point out towards Rule-10 of 2006 Rules to show that there is no requirement of such consent and the respondents can very well consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against any available vacancy. That being so, when the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has stated before this Court that the petitioners have no objection and are ready to accept the appointment on the post of Prakhand Shikshak/Panchayat Shikshak, this Court would direct the respondents to do the needful by considering the case of the petitioner no. 2 to 12 and take a final decision with regard to their compassionate appointment within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Mr. Singh says that the full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors(supra) is sub-judice before the Apex Court. If that be so, it goes without saying that judgment of Apex Court under Article-141 of the Constitution of India is law of the land is binding on all the parties. With the aforementioned observations and direction this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)