IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8372 of 2005 Vinay Kashyap, son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village & Post Bhodha, P.S. Shyampur Bhatha, District- Seohar ………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Regional Deputy Director Education, Tirhut Region, Muzaffarpur 4.The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari ……… Respondents ----------- 4. 03/03/2010 By an office order contained in Memo No.458 dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure-26) issued under the signature of District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, services of six Assistant Teachers were terminated which included this petitioner also. All the six teachers moved this Court separately. While the writ application of the petitioner remained pending, writ applications of other five teachers, namely, C.W.J.C.No.14152 of 2008, C.W.J.C.No.12356 of 2008, C.W.J.C.No.12731 of 2008, C.W.J.C.No.12229 of 2008 and C.W.J.C.No.12228 of 2008 were taken up by a Bench of this Court along with other writ applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner points - 2 - out that the batch of cases, including writ applications of those five incumbents, were allowed by a common judgment of this Court dated 19.3.2009, reported in 2009(3) PLJR 736 (Kishori Prasad Vs. State of Bihar). He submits that all the six teachers, whose services were termination, were appointed in the same Project School which was taken over by the State Government in the first phase in 1981-82. Consequent to the orders passed in the case of other five incumbents, orders have been issued from the office of the Director, Secondary Education contained in Memo No.203(P) dated 24.9.2009 (Annexure-30 with the supplementary affidavit) reinstating them in service. In the background of these facts, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions as to whether case of the petitioner was in any way distinguishable from the case of other five incumbents, or not. In compliance to the said direction, instructions were sought for by learned counsel for the State and a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the District Education Officer, Motihari on 24.2.2010 wherein it has been - 3 - specifically stated that the case of the petitioner is similar to the cases of the said five incumbents. In view of such stand of the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves similar treatment. Therefore, this writ application is allowed and it is directed that the said judgment of this Court in the case of Kishori Prasad (Supra) shall be treated to have been passed in this writ application also. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)