IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5727 of 2010 1. MD. NASEEM S/O LATE MD. SAYEED R/O VILL.- CHIKNAUTA, P.S.- SHEOHAR, DISTT.- SHEOHAR 2. MD. MANSOOR ALAM S/O LATE MD. KHALIL R/O VILL.- RAMPUR KESHO TOLA DAUD NAGAR, P.S.- TARIYANI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR 3. SATRUDHAN PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE LOCHAN SINGH R/O VILL.- RATANPUR, P.S.- PIPRAHI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR 4. MD. ABUL KALAM S/O LATE MD. YASIN R/O VILL.- BASAHIYA SHEKH, P.S.- PIPRAHI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR 5. MD. SAFIULLAH S/O LATE MD. HADISH R/O VILL.- DEMA, P.S.- PARSAUNI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 6. SITARAM SINGH S/O LATE BHARAT SINGH R/O VILL.- KAPGARH, P.S.- TARIYANI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR 7. MD. AZHAR ALAM S/O LATE MD. MANZAR ALAM R/O VILL.- MAHUAWA, P.S.- PIPRAHI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR 8. KEDAR NATH RAY S/O LATE SITARAM RAY R/O VILL.- PARU, P.S.- PARU, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 9. MD. MOKHTAR ALAM S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR R/O VILL.- BASAHIA TOLA GARHWA, P.S.- PIPRAHI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR ----------- 2 4.8.2010 The petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers in different basic schools situated in Tirhut Division of the State. On 22.1.1985, the petitioners were dismissed, which brought them to this Court. This Court remanded the matter to the Director, Primary Education to re-consider, who rejected the representation of the petitioners. Some of similarly situated persons moved this Court and this Court directed that State should continue to take work from them. Petitioners also approached this Court but this Court dismissed their - 2 - writ petition in 1985, against which the petitioners went to the Apex Court .The Apex Court disposed of the appeal in 1986, the order whereof is Annexure 7 .The Apex Court while refusing any direction for reinstatement, issued direction to the State to advertise the vacancy and prepare a fresh panel and appoint Assistant Teachers accordingly. The petitioners were directed to be considered , considering their experience and ignoring age bar. This was the direction issued by the Apex Court in the year 1986 for implementation of which the present writ petition has been filed, after twenty two years. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that Assistant Teachers ,who were similarly dismissed in Saran Division got the order from the Apex Court to continue till fresh selection was made. They are as such continuing but these petitioners are on the road for two decades. In my view, it would be inappropriate for this Court at this late stage to issue any such direction for permitting the petitioners to be taken back in service. However, the fact of the matter is that the Apex Court had directed for fresh recruitment and consequent recruitment of the petitioners pursuant to which petitioner alleges that a panel was duly prepared after due enquiry in which petitioners ‘names appeared but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the panel so prepared was not acted upon and the vacancies continue. This is a matter which should be looked into by the authority for proper action in accordance with law. That is the only relief that can be given to the petitioners in the peculiar facts of this case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ - 3 - petition is disposed of. As the matter has already got delayed for over twenty two years, it is expected that the respondents would take a decision in the matter at the earliest preferably within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)