IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.778 of 2000 Umesh Prasad Srivastava, son of Sri Awadhesh Prasad, resident of Village Nauka Tola Mahuli, P.S. Ram Nagar, Dist. West Champaran. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. ----------- Respondents ----------- 3 08.09.2011 Having heard Mr. K.N. Chaubey, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as with regard to the following prayer:- “1(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction directing and commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service with retrospective effect or to appoint/reappoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant teacher of Government Basic Schools in Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to give the petitioner all consequential benefits after reinstating/appointing the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teachers of Government Basic Schools in Tirhut Division.” this Court would find it difficult now after twenty-three years of the advertisement dated 2 7.8.1988 to issue a mandamus for appointment of the petitioner, specially when there is a direction of the Division Bench as with regard to the same advertisement relating to appointment on the post of Teachers in basic schools restraining the respondents to make any appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the basic schools. The order of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 259 of 2000 disposed of on 5.7.2000 reads as follows:- “This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.1.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11516 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge wherein the prayer made on behalf of the appellant to empanel his name in the supplementary panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government/Basic School has been rejected. The Learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer made on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the advertisement was issued in the year 1998 and supplementary penal was prepared in the year 1988 and supplementary panel was prepared in the year 1996. The authorities are directed not to make any appointment on the basis of list of panel prepared on the basis of selection made in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1988. If the appointment will be allowed to continue on the basis of the old 3 panel/supplementary panel on the post of Assistant teacher prepared in pursuance of advertisement 1988 that will be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The other eligible candidate after 1988 will be deprived of the opportunity to apply for the post.” It is a well settled position in law that there may be no appointment on the basis of a stale advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was already appointed by an appointment letter dated 15.10.1990 but, his services were later on dispensed with on the ground of his appointment letter being forged containing the signature of the then R.D.D.E. Diwakar Pathak. The petitioner, in fact, as against the stoppage of payment of salary and restraining him from working, had moved this Court in CWJC No. 2773 of 1992, which was disposed of in terms of the direction of the Division Bench in a similar case CWJC No. 3159 of 1991, wherein, a direction was given to the Director of the Primary Education to hold an enquiry as with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. It appears that in the enquiry held by the Director, the appointment of the 4 petitioner was found to be forged and such order dated 23.10.1993 was again assailed before this Court in CWJC No. 6210 of 1994 which was disposed of on 10.3.1995 by directing the Director, Primary Education to reconsider the claim of the petitioner after giving him opportunity of hearing. This Court, in fact, had also fixed a time limit of three months for deciding the claim of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no order has been passed pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the order dated 10.3.1995 in CWJC No. 6210 of 1994. As a matter of fact, there can be no repeated direction by this Court for the same cause of action and if there is already an order of this Court for considering the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid CWJC No. 6210 of 1994, no writ application would lie under Order 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Chaubey, however, would explain that the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ application is different and that he wants reinstatement of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, even this plea will not be of any avail, inasmuch as, all the appointments made 5 earlier by Mr. Diwakar including that of the petitioner have been cancelled on being found forged. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim reinstatement on the basis of the earlier appointment. The plea that the petitioner should be included in the panel, inasmuch as, he had obtained higher marks would actually amount to now putting his name in the panel by revising the earlier panel. That would mean that the 1988 advertisement will have to be revived and this exercise has been forbidden by the Division Bench in the aforesaid order. In that view of the matter, while this Court would hold this writ application to be no maintainable, it would give liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 10.3.1995 in CWJC No. 6210 of 1994 by the Director, Primary Education. As with regard to the subsequent discovery of the petitioner of his having secured higher marks and thus also entitled for revision of the panel, this Court must hold that the said exercise cannot be now undergone in view of the direction of the Division Bench not to revise the panel on any 6 ground whatsoever. With the aforementioned observations and liberty, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)