JUDGMENT: S. B. Sinha & G. C. Bharuka, JJ.- These writ application with the consent of the parties were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. A large number of vacancies existed for the posts of Assistant Teachers in various Elementary School in the district of Santhal-parganas numbering about 2000 Advertisements had been issued in the newspapers as well as on the notice board of the offices of the District Superintendent of Education inviting applications from desirous candidates whether trained or untrained. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioners applied for their appointment on the said posts. 4. The petitioners were called upon to appear before an Interview Board with their educational certificates and other testimonials. Thereafter the process of appointment began. The matter was also taken up on the floor of Bihar Legislative Assembly and an assurance was given that all appointments would be made within a reasonable time. 5. Various letters were issued by the Director Primary Education to fill up the said posts at an early date. The District Superintendent of Education thereafter took interviews of the candidates in presence of officers of tile Department and a panel, allegedly duly approved by the Establishment Committee, was prepared. 6. The petitioners' names being included in the said panel were appointed. However, offers of appointment were issued to the teachers phase-wise. The petitioners were appointed on a monthly stipened of Rs. 150/- By a letter dated 81. 5. 1982, the District Superintendent of Education, Santhal parganas, sought permission of the Directorate of Education to pay to the appointees their due salary on the sanctioned scale of pay. 7. By a letter dated 28. 6. 1982 the Deputy Director issued a direction that the said appointees be given the salary in the prescribed scale of pay from 1. 3. 1981. 8. However, by an advertisement issued in local newspaper known as 'Dumka Darpan it was intimated to all concerned that all appointments which were made during the tenure of Shri Hari Narain Jha, the then District Superintendent of Education shall stand annulled. 9. Several teachers who were aggrieved by the said order filed writ application in this Court which was registered as CWJC no. 9. Several teachers who were aggrieved by the said order filed writ application in this Court which was registered as CWJC no. 20 of 1983 Similar writ applications were filed by others which were marked as CWJC No. 147 of 1983, CWJC no. 257 of 1983 and CWJC No. 3560 of 1983. The said writ petitions were allowed. Thereafter, several other writ petitions were also filed which were also allowed in terms of the judgment delivered in CWJC No. 20 of 1983. 10. By reason of this judgment in CWJC No. 20 of 1983 the High Court while quashing the orders of termination gave liberty to respondent no. 1 (Commissioner of Education) that if an enquiry is required to be held, he would serve individual notices of show cause upon the concerned teachers. 11. Pursuant to the aforementioned direction of this Court, notices were issued to more than 600 teachers. 12. However notice had been issued to various teachers and allegedly they continued to work, but no salary was even paid to them. Some such teachers moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction• being CWJC No. 2483 of 1985 whereupon, a Division Bench of this Court, directed initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act against the responsible Officers which was registered as MJC No. 652/85 13. In the meanwhile, in relation to 600 and odd teachers against whom notices had been issued, a proceeding was initiated. The said enquiry was conducted by Shri R. B. Mishra, the then Director of primary Education. The petitioners appeared before the then Director In-charge and filed detailed applications through their advocates to the effect that their cases be also considered along with the cases of other teachers. 14. By an order dated 18. 3. 1986 the appointments of the petitioners wert: cancelled. The appointments of the petitioners and other concerned teachers were found illegal on the following grounds as alleged by the petitioners :- “(i) The main ground for questioning the appointment of the petitioners is based on a letter procured from Shri Baikunth Jha, a retired District Supdt. of Education, stating that there was no panel from which teachers can be appointed. The alleged letter is said to be dated 23. 6. 82, on which date, admittedly, Sri Jha was not D. S. E. Dumka, obviously, this letter has been procured under undue pressure and coercion. of Education, stating that there was no panel from which teachers can be appointed. The alleged letter is said to be dated 23. 6. 82, on which date, admittedly, Sri Jha was not D. S. E. Dumka, obviously, this letter has been procured under undue pressure and coercion. (ii) The Second ground is that there was no sanction from the Establishment Committee and the panel was not approved by the Establishment Committee. (iii) The third ground is that no untrained teacher could have been appointed. (iv) The fourth ground is that these teachers were not found working in their respective schools as per the Report of the Regional Development Officer, and therefore, the question of payment of their salaries do not arise." However, it appears that other 331 teachers appointed from the said panel again moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction which was registered as CWJC no 227 of 1988. 15. A Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 11. 8. 1989 disposed of the said writ application holding :- "On the facts of this case, we observe that persons who are qualified for appointments deserve a consideration and appointment, accordingly, on such posts for which they 3re qualified in preference to other candidates who may be qualified. We, accordingly direct the respondents to proceed to take up the appointments of the teachers in the Elementary Schools of Santhal Pargana and Deoghar by inviting applications from the petitioners and other persons who have been removed because they were illegally required by the District Superintendent of Education and selected if they satisfy the eligibility, conditions and appoint them. In doing so the Respondent State must relax the age limit in case of any of the petitioners found to have come over age during the period of service on stipend and removal. The petitioners or any other candidate who maybe appointed in the vacancy so created on account of removal of the petitioners and other persons appointed by the District Supdt. of Education shall however, not claim any benefit of the appointment illegally given to them by the District Supdt. of Education but shall receive emoluments and other benefits by dint of their selection and appointment in accordance with law." 16. Several Special leave Petitions were, filed against the said judgment before the Supreme Court of India which were registered as SLP Nos. of Education but shall receive emoluments and other benefits by dint of their selection and appointment in accordance with law." 16. Several Special leave Petitions were, filed against the said judgment before the Supreme Court of India which were registered as SLP Nos. 11699, 11692, 11654 of 1990 and the said special Leave applications were disposed of by an order dated 7. 2. 1991. 17. Pursuant to the aforementioned decision an advertisement was issued which is contained in Annexure-10 to the C. W. J. C. No. 7000 of 1992 wherein it was intimated that the teachers who were appointed in the year 1981-1982 would again be interviewed 18. All the petitioners appeared before the interview Board and they were interviewed and their relevant papers were also examined. 19. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme court the teachers belonging to four categories i. e. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Sanskrit and Urdu teachers, were only appointed. Two Contempt applications were thereafter filed before the Supreme Court of India bearing Nos. 236-40/91 and 263/91 which reads as follows:- "From the material on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied that it is a case in which it can conclusively be said that the respondents have willfully or deliberately or contemptuously flouted or disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 7.2.1991. It appears to us to be a case of misinterpretation of the executive directions and order of this court dated 7. 2. 1991 and is therefore, not a fit case in which contempt proceedings need to proceed any further. We accordingly drop the contempt proceedings and discharge the Rule Issued against the respondents. Since the court has found entitlement of the untrained teachers in all the categories to appointment provided they are otherwise qualified and trained teachers are not available, is directed the respondents to properly comply with the orders of this court dated 7.2.1991 and select and appoint untrained teachers who are otherwise qualified for appointment in all categories without putting the condition of training or against them where untrained teachers are not available. The same must conclude the process of fresh selection in the light of the observations made in this order expeditiously and, in any case, not later than three months from today." 20. Thereafter again by a notice dated 20. 2. 1992 the petitioners were directed to appear before the Inspection Committee. The same must conclude the process of fresh selection in the light of the observations made in this order expeditiously and, in any case, not later than three months from today." 20. Thereafter again by a notice dated 20. 2. 1992 the petitioners were directed to appear before the Inspection Committee. However, according to the petitioners no appointments were made within the aforementioned time limit. 21. Another application for contempt was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein a direction was given to issue the appointment letter to the petitioners before it after examining their qualification etc. The said order was passed on 22. 4. 1992 which reads as follows: "Having regard to the orders of this court dt. 7.2.1991 and 22.11.1991 all that now requires to be done by the State of Bihar which has been recalcitrant so far which obliged the petitioners to move this contempt petition is to issue appointment orders to the petitioners herein after examining the qualification. It is the submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, that all the petitioners who have moved the contempt petition are qualified. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar Mr. B. B. Singh accepts the correctness of this statement that the petitioners are qualified. This acceptance is after instruction from the Director of Human Resources, Primary Education Bihar who is present in Court if this be so nothing remains to be done excepting to issue the actual appointment orders. In view of the difficulties pleaded by the State, taking a lenient view of the matter, we grant time till 10. 5. 1992 to the State of Bihar to issue appointment orders in favour of all the petitioners in this contempt petition' Call the case on 11. 5. 1992 for further orders. The matter be treated as part heard' If this Bench is not sitting on that day the matter be placed in the Chamber at 1.30 P. M. on that date," 22. By an order dated 6. 5. 1992 appointments letters were directed to be issued to all the 331 persons who were petitioners before the Supreme court. 23. The contempt application was thereafter disposed off by an order dated 11. 5. By an order dated 6. 5. 1992 appointments letters were directed to be issued to all the 331 persons who were petitioners before the Supreme court. 23. The contempt application was thereafter disposed off by an order dated 11. 5. 1992 whereby time till 31st August, 1992 was granted for compliance with its intaim order dated 7th February, 1991 which is the following effect- "Those of the Teachers who have served in the past but there has been a break in service on account of termination shall have the credit of past service both in regard to the payment of salary as also seniority and other service benefits." 24. The Contention of the petitioner is that although pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court of India a panel had been prepared and although the persons whose names appeared below the petitioners therein they had been appointed Only because they were petitioners before the Supreme court of India. It has, therefore, beer submitted that the petitioners being similarly situated are entitled to the benefit of the directions given by the Supreme Court and as the same has been denied to them, there has been a clear violation of equality before Jaw and equal protection of law as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. In come of the writ applications counter affidavits have been filed. However, counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 7000 of 1992 has been referred to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. It has been contended that at the relevant time the petitioners were not trained and as a degree in teachers training was one of the pre-condition for appointment, the appointment of the petitioners must be held to be illegal. In the said counter affidavit it has further been stated that appointments letter, were issued in respect of the teachers were forged and fabricated documents. 26. However in the said counter affidavit the other statements so far as the same relate to the legal proceedings before this court as also the Supreme Court of India are concerned, have not been disputed. 27. However our attention has been drawn to an application filed in the Supreme Court of India on beha1f of the State of Bihar (Annaxure 13) to the counter affidavit wherein various difficulties faced by the State were pointed out. 27. However our attention has been drawn to an application filed in the Supreme Court of India on beha1f of the State of Bihar (Annaxure 13) to the counter affidavit wherein various difficulties faced by the State were pointed out. In the said application it was contended;- "(i) At the time of illegal appointments only two districts namely Dumka and Sahebganj Were concerned, Subsequently each of those districts have been birercated and now there are four districts. Deoghar District has been carved out from Dumka and Godda from Sahebganj. So those cases are to be considered in two lots-one for Dumka-Deoghar and another for Sahebganj-Godda. The total number of vacancies when these illegal appointments were made were as follows :- Dumka-Deoghar : 628 Sahebganj-Godda : 940 _______ Total......... 1, 568. _______ Out of these vacancies, 230 in Dumka Deoghar and 308 in Sahebganj-Godda i. e. 538 vacancies were to be filled up by promotion and remaining by direct recruitment as follows ;- Dumka-Deoghar 628-230=398 Sahebganj- Godda 940-308=632 ____________ Total ……… 1, 030 ____________ According to the rules regarding reservation enforced at that time, 40% vacancies were to be filled up by SC and 10%by ST, candidates. That means 50% of the total vacancies were open for general category candidates. Out of 1030 vacnacies meant for direct recuitment (308 in Dumka-Deoghar and 632 in Sahebganj-Godda). 50% i. e. 515 only can be offered to the general candidates. The Break-up of these vacancies meant for general candidates is as follows:- Dumka-Deoghar : 199 Sahebgaoj-Godda : 316 _______ Total 515 _______ The number of general candidates in each set is more than 1, 000. Out of the total general candidates merit list according to the rules shall be prepared and 515 candidates shall be absorbed according to merit and subject to the reservation regarding ladies, handicapped, Urdu, Sanskrit, Science Etc." It had further been contended:- "It is relevant to mention here that under the old rule (i. e. prior to 1990) there was no provision for written competitive examination. Advertisement under the new rule has been issued and applications were invited by 15. 12. 1991. In the concerned four districts about 40,000 (Forty thousand) persons have applied. There are about 25000-Vacancies throughout the State which have to be fined up according to new rules (1990). Advertisement under the new rule has been issued and applications were invited by 15. 12. 1991. In the concerned four districts about 40,000 (Forty thousand) persons have applied. There are about 25000-Vacancies throughout the State which have to be fined up according to new rules (1990). Out of these 25000 vacancies, the vacancies in these districts is as follows: Approved for S. C. ST, Backwards Ladies etc. General Dumka-Deoghar -371 371 Sahebganj-Godda -639 639 Total 1010 1010 Out of the 1010 general vacancies, 515 shall be filled up from amongst the petitioners and similarly situated persons according to Court's order. It is also to be submitted here that number of S. C, S. T. candidates against the petitioners and similarly-situated persons, is only 21 whereas according to reservation rules (old) 515 vacancies were reserved for them. That means after absorption of the 515 amongst the petitioners and similarly situated person as per court's order, the backlog for S. C. S. T. shall be 515-21 =494 for this transaction. In this way only one vacancy remains for the general candidates in these four districts out of the twenty five thousand vacancies throughout the State." 28. It has, therefore, been contended that in this situation it is not possible to appoint any petitioner in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. 29. However learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in CWJC No. 20 of 1983 which is contained in Annexure-14 of CWJC No. 6674 of 1991 wherein it has been stated as follows - "That the statement made in paragraph 21 of the writ application is not correct. It is submitted that 2000 vacancies were available out of which 800 were filled up. No letter regarding the approval of appointment of 800 (Eight hundred) teachers as mentioned above has been received in this Office nor is there any record in the District Supdt. of Education Office to show if at all such appointments Were ordered by the Competent Committee. " 30. The bone of contention in this writ application, therefore, is that according to the State there is only one vacancy, where as according to the petitioners there are not less than 2,000 vacancies. 31. of Education Office to show if at all such appointments Were ordered by the Competent Committee. " 30. The bone of contention in this writ application, therefore, is that according to the State there is only one vacancy, where as according to the petitioners there are not less than 2,000 vacancies. 31. No statement has been made in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State that all the aforementioned 2,000/- vacancies have been filled up. 32 From a perusal of the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in CWJC No. 20 of 1983 it appears that at one point of time about 2,000/- vacancies have been filled up. 33. It is true that before the Supreme court of India the State had pointed out various difficulties in appointing the teachers of the panel prepared by it. 34. Manifestly, however, the said purported difficulties pointed out by the State were not considered by the Supreme Court as is un-surmountable one inasmuch as it now stands admitted by all concerned that in fact all the 331 persons who were before the Supreme court of India have since been appointed. 35. It has not been disputed nor it could be disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that a panel was ill fact prepared,. Thus if the names of the petitioners appeared in the said panel along-with those who were petitioners before the Supreme court of India, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that they stand on the same footing in as much as pursuant to the orders of the Supreme court not only the petitioners before it who filed application for appointment, but the petitioners before us and others also Were called for interview before the Interview Board and the names of all persons who have come out successful were included in the panel. 36. It is, therefore, clear that all those persons who were empaneled should be treated alike and then vacant posts were bound to be filled up in accordance with the panel. 37. In terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the State is bound to treat all persons similarly situated alike. It is also well known that persons similarly situated cannot be discriminated against in any manner whatsoever. 38. 37. In terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the State is bound to treat all persons similarly situated alike. It is also well known that persons similarly situated cannot be discriminated against in any manner whatsoever. 38. In this case as noticed hereinbefore, steps have been taken by the State of Bihar to act in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court as pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court a panel consisting the names of all those persons Was prepared irrespective of the fact that they were petitioners before the Supreme Court of India or not. 39. The State could not have, therefore, adopted pick and chose policies and appoint only those persons who were petitioners before the Supreme Court of India. 40. Such an action evidently was taken by the State in order to save itself from being punished under the Contempt of Court Act by the Supreme Court of India. 41. However, after the judgment was reserved, the cases were again brought under the heading "to be mentioned" in order to ascertain the number of posts sanctioned and the actual vacancies existing in those districts. 42. The State has filed a counter affidavit in C. W. J. C. No. 7000 of 1992 where in it reiterated its stand taken before the Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned contempt petition. On the other hand, in C. W. J C. No. 9552 of 1992 affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to show that at present there exists 4611 vacancies in the districts of Sahebganj, Godda, Dumka and Deoghar and against the said vacancies, the total number of persons who may have to be appointed would be about 2061. 43. It is admitted at the Bar that similar applications were rending before the Supreme Court of India in various cases including SLP (Civil) no. 1005 of 1990. The said Special Leave petition has been disposed of by an order dated 30. 11. 1992 in the following terms :- "We, therefore, direct once again that if there are vacancies and if there are no trained teachers available, the untrained teachers who were employed prior to the new rule came into operation, would he reinstated in service if after subjecting them to the selection process they are found suitable. 11. 1992 in the following terms :- "We, therefore, direct once again that if there are vacancies and if there are no trained teachers available, the untrained teachers who were employed prior to the new rule came into operation, would he reinstated in service if after subjecting them to the selection process they are found suitable. If there are no vacancies, they would be empanelled according to their seniority, and would be appointed according to their seniority in the vacancies arising in future unless this panel is exhausted, no new appointments of untrained teachers will be made from outside. It is understood that those eligible for being so appointed will the ones who were appointed before the new rule came into operation. While making the appointments of those who were so in service prior to the date of appointment, the State Government will relax the age limit, if necessary. We are informed that the appellants involved in the present case were paid salaries till 30th June, 1991. We also understand from Mr. B. B. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the State that ail the vacancies have been filled in till 1. 1. 1992. If there were vacancies and yet the appellants were not appointed in the said vacancies such of the appellants who were eligible to be appointed and yet were not appointed in spite of the vacancies would be entitled to the salaries from 1st July, 1992 till their appointment. However, if there were no vacancies and all the appellants or some of them have to be appointed in the new vacancies which may be available hereafter they will not be entitled to the salaries from 1st July, 1992 till the date of their appointment. However, when they are appointed the period of break in service not exceeding one year will be taken into consideration for benefits other than salary." 44. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as also learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted before us that these matters may also be disposed of in the light of the aforementioned direction of the Supreme Court. We do it according. We may, however, direct the State to fill up posts in terms of the aforemention of the Supreme Court with utmost expeditioned direction and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 45. We do it according. We may, however, direct the State to fill up posts in terms of the aforemention of the Supreme Court with utmost expeditioned direction and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 45. In some of the writ petitions, it has been contended that the concerned teachers had been working. It appears that in some of the writ applications interim orders had been passed as a result whereof, the petitioners therein have been working in their respective schools and drawing their salaries. In such cases, the State may not terminate the services of such teachers unless a final determination is made in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court aforementioned. 46. These application are thus disposed of with the aforementioned observations. Application disposed with directions.