Judgment B.N. Agrawal &. S.K. Singh, JJ. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners who are residents of Siwan district and had applied for being appointed as Assistant Teachers pursuant to an advertisement issued on 3rd of March, 1985, contained in Annexure ‘1’, wherein it was mentioned that the residents of Siwan district were alone entitled to make application for such appointment. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners were selected for being appointed as Assistant Teachers and two panels were prepared, which are Annexures 3 and 3/1 to the writ application in which names of the petitioners have been mentioned. The petitioners filed the present writ application challenging the aforesaid two panels on various grounds which are not necessary to be enumerated hereunder in view of the nature of the order which we are going to pass in this case. During the pendency of the writ application, the State Government has take a decision, which was published in the newspaper on 22nd July, 1989 which is contained in Annexure 12' to the writ application whereby all 1800 existing vacancies throughout Bihar of assistance teachers in elementary schools were to be filled up from amongst the persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes only. The petitioners are challenging this decision of the Government also in the present writ application on the ground that by the aforesaid decision of the State Government, referred to above, cent per cent reservation has been made. 2. On behalf of the State, statement was made at the bar by the learned Advocate General that so far as the aforesaid decision of the State Government, which was published in the newspaper and enumerated in Annexure 12 is concerned the State Government has after thoroughly considering the matter decided the same and fresh decision shall be taken for filling up 18000 existing vacancies in accordance with law where after fresh advertisement will be issued. In view of this stand of the State, we are of the view that it is not necessary to decide the validity or otherwise of the aforesaid Government decision. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from deciding this question in the present writ application. 3. In view of this stand of the State, we are of the view that it is not necessary to decide the validity or otherwise of the aforesaid Government decision. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from deciding this question in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners attacked the two panels contained in Annexure 3 and 3/1 on various grounds, but since these panels are liable to be struck down on a solitary ground stated, hereinafter, it is not necessary to go into the merit of other grounds of attack. Admittedly these two panel were prepared on the basis of an advertisement in which a bar was put that persons of the district of Siwan could only apply. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners subtitled that putting such a bar would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar vs. Chief Secretary to the State Government of Bihar (1987 P.L.J.R. 846) in which on this very ground, panel prepared in Hazaribagh district was challenged and the same was struck down on the ground that the same was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Striking down the said panel, Mr. Justice N.P. Singh, speaking for the Court observed: "In the instant case, the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, by the impugned order dated 31.1.1986, has purported to restrict the persons residents of other district of the State of Bihar from being considered for appointment to the posts of teachers in the Primary Schools and has made the posts available only to the residents of the district of Hazaribagh. The order per se is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because it discriminates the residents of other districts without any rational basis. It need not be pointed out that the residents of Hazaribagh neither form a class separate from the residents of other districts of the state nor there is any reasonable object which is sought to be achieved by the order which is under challenge. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Courts that the framers of the Constitution under Article 16 desired that persons of merit should be selected for appointment in public services respective of their caste, creed, religion or residence. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Courts that the framers of the Constitution under Article 16 desired that persons of merit should be selected for appointment in public services respective of their caste, creed, religion or residence. This object is frustrated when any reservation is made on the basis of the district because persons who have better merit but not being residents of the district in question are deprived of the opportunity of being considered for appointment to the posts in question." (Emphasis added) In our view, the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court and the two panels contained in Annexures 3 and 3/1 are invalid, the same being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the whole panel should not be quashed by this Court. It has been submitted that out of these two panels, 212 persons have already been appointed and since all of them have not been made parties in the present writ application their appointment can not be disturbed by quashing the panels so far the same relate to such persons. In support of his submission, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon operative portion of judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) which reads thus: "But, as the persons who have already been appointed are not party to this application, their appointments cannot be held to be invalid in their absence. However, the respondents are restrained from making any appointment from the panel prepared on the basis of the advertisement and the order aforesaid." 5. Learned Advocate General further submitted that since in the Hazaribagh case, this Court refused to quash the appointments of those persons whose names were mentioned in such an invalid panel as they were not parties to the writ application, the State Government has taken a decision on 2.7.1989, which is contained in Annexure 11' to the writ application, to the effect that appointments of persons from such invalid panels would not be disturbed but further appointments shall not be made out of such panels. He also submitted that State has taken a further decision that with regard to the persons like the petitioners whose names stand in such invalid panels, age bar will be relaxed in the next appointment which will be made on the basis of fresh advertisement after taking decision afresh, as stated above. 6. Dr. Sadanand Jha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the other hand, fairly submitted that he does not dispute the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), but in the case in hand the position is entirely different. According to him, in the present case, out of 212 persons who were appointed out of the two panels contained in Annexures 3 and 3/1, four persons have been impleaded in their representative capacity, who are respondents 7 to 10, for representing the cases of other assistant teachers also who have been appointed out of the said two invalid panels. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma and others vs. Dal Chand and others (A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court, 167) In that case, constitutional validity of two successive Ordinances issued by Governor of Uttar Pradesh was challenged before Allahabad High Court exercise of writ jurisdiction. According to the Ordinances, services of those assistant teachers were liable to be terminated who had indulged in strike. During the pendency of the writ application, in accordance with the Ordinances, services of the teachers were terminated and other persons were appointed as teachers. The Ordinances were struck down on the ground of constitutional invalidity After disposal of the writ application, the State Government terminated the services of those very teachers who were appointed during the pendency of the writ application after terminating the services of the existing teachers in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances. This decision of the State Government was challenged before the High Court in another writ on the ground that judgment of the High Court striking down the Ordinances was not binding upon such teachers as they were not parties to the previous writ application, but the writ application was dismissed. The aggrieved teachers went to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for grant of special leave to appeal and upon grant of such leave, civil appeals were preferred. The aggrieved teachers went to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for grant of special leave to appeal and upon grant of such leave, civil appeals were preferred. Other teachers, who were also similarly situated but who did not move the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, filed a writ application before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The civil appeals and writ petition were heard and disposed of by Supreme Court holding that the two Ordinances were constitutionally valid and the High Court's decision declaring these two Ordinances to be invalid in the earlier writ application was over ruled in view of the aforesaid facts, the appointment of teachers in accordance with Ordinances was held to he valid and it was laid down that the same could not have been disturbed without giving notice to them as a valuable right had accrued to them. It was further laid down that it was not necessary to give notice to each and every teacher as in cases where number of such persons was large in that event, it was sufficient if only some of them were joined and noticed in representative capacity, and that since those teachers were not impleaded even in their representative capacity in the earlier writ application filed before the High Court, the apex Court quashed the decision of the Government terminating their services. 7. The Supreme Court in the said case laid down the law on this point which runs thus: "A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the person who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents-in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." (Emphasis added) In our view, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Prabodh Verma (supra). In the instant case, since respondents 7 to 10, who have been duly noticed by this Court, have been undisputedly impleaded as respondents in the representative capacity, they can represent the cases of other teachers also who have already been appointed out of the two panels, referred to above petitioner's case here stands on a better footing than that of Prabodh Verma (supra) as there the Court upheld constitutional validity of statutes and a question had arisen as to whether appointments of persons in accordance with such statutes could be affected by judgment of the High Court in the previous writ application in which they were not made party either individually or in representative capacity. According to decision of the apex Court even though appointment of large number of persons made under a valid piece of legislation are challenged before a Court of law, each individual going to be affected by Court's order need not be impleaded as party and only some of them may be impleaded in representative capacity if the grounds of attack are common. In the instant case, the appointments of 214 teachers have been made an the basis of the two panels which we have already declared in this judgment to be invalid being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as such, case of those teachers would stand on a lower footing that that affected teachers of Prabodh Verma's case (supra) But even then we hold that they should be impleaded atleast in their representative capacity and the same having been done we are clearly of the view that the two panels in its entirety and the appointments made therefrom are fit to be quashed. 8. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the two panels contained in Annexure 3 and 3/1 and the appointments of 212 persons including respondents 7 to 10 out of the aforesaid panels are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that parties shall bear their own costs. HCM. Application allowed.