Judgment S. N. Jha, Dharmpal Sinha JJ. 1. -this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed for direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as an assistant teacher in as "the school") 2. The facts giving rise to the present application, shortly stated, are that the school was established on 2-1-1974. The petitioner is said to have been appointed on 10-1-1974 by the then Managing Committee vide annexure-1 to the writ petition, along with other teachers. On 5-3-1975 an inspection was held by the District Education Officer along with other officers for the purpose of recognition and partial recognition of the school was granted by the then Bihar Secondary Education Board on 11-7-1975. According to the petitioner, he continued to work as an assistant teacher in the said school till 5-9-1978 when he, along with another teacher Krishna Nand singh was relieved for the purpose of training. After completion of training, the petitioner and the said Krishan Nand Singh rejoined the school on 1-5-1979. In the meantime, the special Board constituted for the purpose of taking over and approval of the teachers as required under Sec.3 (3)of the Bihar Non-government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control)Act, 1981 made inspection and submitted its report on 12-5-1980. A copy of the report has been marked as Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner figures at Serial No.4 of the said report. In respect of the petitioner as well as the said Krishna Nand Singh it was mentioned therein that they have already completed the training and were awaiting its result. It is said that on 10-8-1981 result of the aforesaid examination was published and the Board of Secondary Education was duly informed that the petitioner had passed the examination. In the meantime, however, notification in terms of section 3 (3) of the said Act had already been issued by the State Government on 27-3-1981 in which the names of only five teachers including headmaster, one clerk and two peons were mentioned. A copy of the aforesaid notification dated 27-3-1981 has been marked as Annexure-9. In the meantime, however, notification in terms of section 3 (3) of the said Act had already been issued by the State Government on 27-3-1981 in which the names of only five teachers including headmaster, one clerk and two peons were mentioned. A copy of the aforesaid notification dated 27-3-1981 has been marked as Annexure-9. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit that soon thereafter by memo No.27847-57 dated 20-10-1981, the Special Secretary to the government in the Education Department further approved the services of four teachers of the said school, namely, Shri Sarangdhar Singh, Shri Siya ram Sab, Shri Shira Nandan Das and Shri Pratap Narayan Singh, without considering the case of tha petitioner, although he had alteady passed the training examination by then and, as would appear from the report of the special Board, he had been appointed eirlier in point of time at least so far as the aforesaid S/shri Siya Ram Sah, Shiva Nandan Das and Pratap Narayan singh are concerned According to the patitioner further, in 1982 another order was issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Bihar, vide memo dated 11-8-1982 (Annexurs 5), whoreby the services of aforesaid Krishna nand Singh was approved. At that stage also the case of the petitioner was not considered. 3. The grievance of the petitioner, as would appear from the facts mentioned hsreinabove, is that the petitioner being a founder teacher and his name having been mentioned at Serial No.4. i. e. within the sanctioned strength and he having already completed necessary training, there was no justification on the part of the authority to ignore the case of the petitioner from consideration. The petitioner in this connection has placed reliance, on a communication of the State Government in the Education Department dated 2-4-1980 (Annexure-4) in which it has clearly been stated that the services of even such untrained graduate teachers would be considered by the special Board who have been appointed within the sanctioned strength and who on the date of inspection by the Special Board are either receiving training or who after completion of the training have not appeard at the examination on account of any stay order or whose result has not been published. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in spite of the fact that this writ petition is pending for over eight years. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in spite of the fact that this writ petition is pending for over eight years. In the absence of the counter affidavit, we are not able to appreciate as to under what circumstances and for what reason the case of the petitioner has been ignored from consideration. Prima facie it is not intelligible to us as to how in spite of the petitioner having been appointed on 10-1-1974, i. e. earlier than the three persons mentioned above, who were granted approval by order dated 20-10-1982, he was left out from consideration. It may be possible, although we do not know, that the aforesaid three persons might have passed training earlier in point of time than the petitioner and on that basis they were preferred for the purpose of approval on 20-10-1981, but it is difficult to appreciate as to how the services of the said Krishna Nand Singh were approved on 11-8-1982 Prima facie, the contention of the petitioner appears to bs well founded that his case stands on the same footing as that of krishna Nand Singh, inasmuch as both were appointed on the same date, both were relieved for the purpose of training on the same date, both rejoined the said school on the same date and both passed the examination on the same date. 5. It would not be out of place to mention that the petitioner had on previous occasion also filed C. W. J. C. No 4475 of 1982 in this court which was disposed of on 29-11-1982 with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner. However, nothing of the kind appears to have been done. As a matter of fact, the concerned authorities have shown utter indifference and calousness in not even filing any counter affidavit in this ease and acquainting us with full facts. 6. In the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration for the purpose of approval of his services/appointment as an assistant teacher in the said school. 6. In the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration for the purpose of approval of his services/appointment as an assistant teacher in the said school. It is made clear that absence of vacancy on the post of assistant teacher in that school will not stand in the; way of consideration of the case of the petitioner and if he is otherwise eligible and qualified for such appointment, which apparently he appears to be, his case has to be considered, if necessary, for any other school. 7. The petitioner will file a representation along with a copy of this judgment before the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar (Respondent no.2) who will consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein and issue appropriate order in accordance with law within the period of three months from the date of such representation. It is made clear that in the event of any violation or non-compliance of this order, the concerned respondent will render himself liable for contempt, particularly on account of the fact that the case of the petitiont has remained pending in spite of the previous order of this Court made as early as on 29-11-1982. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the observation/direction mentioned above, but without any order as to costs. Writ application allowed.