IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12118 of 1995 RAMESH KUMAR VERMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ---------- For Petitioner:- Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For State :- G.P.-15, Nutan Sharma, J.C. to G.P.-15 10 9.9.2008 This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming that the respondents 4 and 5 have been wrongly appointed as Assistant Teachers from panel prepared which consisted of temporary teachers. From the pleadings it appears that time to time, petitioner and others were appointed as Assistant Teachers for a short period i.e. about 6 months. This procedure was prevalent since 1986. Finally, the Government decided to prepare a panel of all these temporary teachers and thereafter make appointments against the vacancies for the post of Assistant Teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the panel his name appeared at serial no. 21 whereas the name of respondent nos. 4 appeared at serial no. 24 and the name of respondent no. 5 did not appear in the panel at all. It is submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 had wrongly been given preference in appointment vis a vis this petitioner. By order dated 4.8.1997 this Court 2 while hearing the writ application passed an interim order issuing notice to respondents 4 and 5 to show cause in the writ petition and also ordered that respondents 4 and 5 would not be paid their salary during the pendency of the application. Mr. Mangalam appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 submits that respondent no. 4 has been dismissed and respondent no. 5 has died. The case of the counsel for the petitioner is that if respondent nos. 4 and 5 had not been appointed then the petitioner had a good chance to be reconsidered for appointment from the panel, as he was senior in the list prepared, being at serial no. 21. It has been pleaded in the writ application that the panel has been cancelled on 26th July, 1991. Considering the fact that the panel has been cancelled by the State Government, the question of examining petitioner’s claim for consideration for appointment does not arise in this case. The writ application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)