IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8024 of 1997 1.ALI AHMAD MIAN son of Shri Halim Mian, resident of village Barwan, P.S. Naraipur, District West Champaran, Bettiah. 2.Md. Abu Junaid, son of Abdus Samad, resident of village Sabeya, P.S. Ramnagar, District West Champaran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director (Primary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3.The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran at Bettiah. ----------- 3 20.7.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application prayer of the petitioners reads as follows: “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.6.1997, as contained in memo no.1012 dated 25.6.1997, issued under the signature of the Director, Primary education cum Special Secretary, Department of Primary, Secondary and Mass Education, whereby the claims of the petitioners for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher giving them same and similar equitable treatment, as has been given to juniors to them, have been rejected on entirely nonest ground and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher in Elementary Schools in the district of West Champaran a Bettiah giving them same equitable treatment, which has been given to the juniors to the petitioners with all ancillary benefits of service including seniority and salary with effect from the date their juniors have so been appointed and given such benefits.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer there is clear stand of the respondents in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, which despite being served on counsel for the petitioner on 2 24.3.1998 has not been controvrted. Such stand of the respondents in paragraph 3 would disentitle the petitioners for any relief, inasmuch as, it has been stated therein that the petitioner did not appear at the interview of 1985 and again a fresh panel was prepared in the year 1987 and no junior to the petitioner have been appointed. Hence the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. Once this aspect becomes clear that the petitioner did not appear in the interview of 1985 and fresh panel was prepared in 1987, there would be no question of appointment of the petitioners as no junior to them have been appointed. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)