Judgment G. B. Patnaik, C. J. 1. -these writ applications involve common questions with regard to the right of those persons who had been empanelled for being appointed on the posts of Assistant Science Teachers in the district of Ranchi and yet persons down below in the list were appointed and their cases were excluded from being appointed. 2. An advertisement had been issued on 14.10.1981 inviting applications from the candidates to be appointed as Assistant science Teachers with the minimum qualification of I. Sc. or B. Sc. The petitioners and several others had made their applications. The persons who were found to be qualified were called for interview on 12.2.1982 and ultimately a panel was drawn up which was published on 8.4.1986. 3. The petitioners grievance is than though their names have been placed sufficiently high up in the panel and though they were waiting for being appointed orr the different posts of Assistant Science teachers, but the authority ignoring their cases have appointed persons down below and thus being aggrieved by the said decision they have approached this Court it may be noticed that in most of the cases the persons who have already been aptpointed, even though alleged to be down below the petitioners in the panel, have not been arrayed as parties and those appointees of the year 1986 have continued by now for about 9 years. The petitioners therefore, do not assail the appointments al ready made but pray that their cases for appointment should also be considered and rightly because the persons down below in the panel have been appointed. The State government in its counter-affidavit does not dispute the assertion that the persons down below the petitioners in the panel have been appointed and, in fact, it is conceded that there have been some irregularities in drawing up of the panel. But the State government takes the stand that finding such irregularities an order has been passed in July, 1989, wherein the appointments already made have been protected, and it has been held that the said panel should not be operative any further. But the State government takes the stand that finding such irregularities an order has been passed in July, 1989, wherein the appointments already made have been protected, and it has been held that the said panel should not be operative any further. Further stand of the State Government, as it appears from the argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the State is that it is not known as to what would be the exact number of existing vacancies available and further the appointment has to be routed through Bihar Services Selection Board and it is only on the recommendation of the said Board that appointment can be made. 4. In the State of Bihar appointments of teachers to primary schools were being made on the basis of residence of the candidates in a particular district. Accordingly, in the year 1986 districtwise panels also had been prepared for such appointments. In Anil Kumars case (1987 PLJR 846) the high Court declared the panel to be unconstitutional, but directed that the appointments already made from the panel should not be disturbed. The Court also restrained the State from making any further appointment from the panel. That decision became final and was not challenged in any higher forum, but the State of Bihar issued a direction on 2.7.89 prohibiting (sic) from the panels prepared on districtwise basis and further directed that there should be a public advertisement calling for fresh applications and those applications should be considered and a fresh panel would be prepared by the Committee formed by the district authority. It was also stipulated that the candidates who are already in the districtwise panel but could not be appointed, should also be duly considered. In view of the aforesaid Government Circular, no further appointments having been made from the panels already prepared, they filed writ applications in the High Court and against the decision of the High Court, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court. Some of the persons from the panel also filed a petition under article 32 directly in the Supreme court. All these cases were heard and disposed of together by the judgment dated 6.12.1992 which has since been reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 162, commonly known as sabita Prasads case. 5. Some of the persons from the panel also filed a petition under article 32 directly in the Supreme court. All these cases were heard and disposed of together by the judgment dated 6.12.1992 which has since been reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 162, commonly known as sabita Prasads case. 5. Their Lordships of the Supreme corut came to the conclusion that the panel prepared cannot be treated as conferring any vested or indefeasible rights to the teachers to be appointed. The Court further found that the list of persons in the panel was neither related to existing vacancies nor to anticipated vacancies and as such, such a panel did not create any vested right on the empanelists to be appointed. It was also held that the equities which had come into existence in favour of the appointees had been rightly protected while quashing the panel in Anil Kumars case and it was a fair exercise of discretion on the part of the Government not to oust those who had been appointed and were serving. According to the Apex Court, non-interference with the appointment of teachers from the panel who stood already appointed cannot form the basis of an argument advanced under article 14. The Court, however, ultimately observed that no relief can be granted to the candidates who were waiting to be appointed but could not be appointed because of the cancellation of the panel on 2.7.1989, but they would be entitled to apply for consideration for appointment under the new rule which has come into existence in 1991 as and when vacancies arise and advertised subject to fulfilling the necessary conditions. The State was also directed to consider the question of relaxation of age bar in suitable cases. With these conclusions their Lordships considered the empanelists of different districts and issued proper directions. 6. In paragraph 34 of the judgment, f. he case of 33 teachers belonging to Nalanria District had been considered and in that district candidates figuring below the appellants in the panel had been appointed while the appellants had been left out, as in the present case belonging to Ranchi District. On the basis of concession of Mr. 6. In paragraph 34 of the judgment, f. he case of 33 teachers belonging to Nalanria District had been considered and in that district candidates figuring below the appellants in the panel had been appointed while the appellants had been left out, as in the present case belonging to Ranchi District. On the basis of concession of Mr. Sibal, appearing for the state of Bihar, the Court directed that the case of appellants therein should be considered wherever persons below them in the district had been appointed and, if necessary in relaxation of age bar against the existing vacancies. 7. Now that the new Rules have come into existence since 1991 and since the state does not dispute the assertions made in these applications that persons below them from the panel have been appointed, following the direction of the Supreme Court in case of teachers of Nalanda District, we would dispose of these applications by requiring the State of Bihar to consider the cases of these petitioners for appointment as primary school teachers since persons below them from the panel had already been appointed and, if necessary, in relaxation of the age bar against the existing vacancies and if there is no vacancy, against future vacancies. The appropriate authority under 1991 Rules may consider the cases of these petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. These writ applications are, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid directions. There will be, however, no order as to costs.