JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5199 of 2002 on 27.6.2007. 2. The case of the appellants before the writ court was that a large number of vacancies for the post of Assistant Teachers in the Primary, Elementary and Middle Schools of Sehebganj, (North Santhal Pargena District) existed by notification dated 7.3.1981 and the applications were invited to be submitted for the said posts by 5 9.1981. Appellants being eligible and possessing required qualifications; applied for the pest of Assistant Teachers. The interviews were held in between August to September, 1981, whereafter, the appellants along with others were selected and their names appeared in the panel of successful candidates. Accordingly, they were appointed by the competent authority as per detailed chart. After joining to the assignment they continued working as teachers to the satisfaction of the authority, but they were terminated from there services on non est grounds and without assigning reasons. In the year 1934,1985 & 1986 a large number of Assistant Teachers similarly situated also: were terminated and consequently the aggrieved filed several writ petitions. 3. Mr. Tandon, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that by the order dated 20.1.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7000/1992 the Patna High Court quashed the impugned termination orders inclusive of the appellants and disposed of the writ application in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 10051/1990 directing the State to fill up the said posts and reinstate the terminated Assistant Teachers including the appellants in service after. subjecting them to the selection process if they were found suitable The appellants further underwent selection process, pursuant to the above direction and a panel of the successful candidates was prepared by the respondents vide order dated 24.8.1194. The names of the appellants were included in the said panel dated 24.8.1994 for their reappointment on the post of Assistant Teachers and accordingly, they were appointed in the year 1996, 1997 & 2000 as per chart detailed in Annexure-1. The appellants accordingly joined their services immediately and started discharging their duties against he salaries paid to them regularly. 4. The names of the appellants were included in the said panel dated 24.8.1994 for their reappointment on the post of Assistant Teachers and accordingly, they were appointed in the year 1996, 1997 & 2000 as per chart detailed in Annexure-1. The appellants accordingly joined their services immediately and started discharging their duties against he salaries paid to them regularly. 4. The appellants after some time, represented before the respondents for payment of their arrears of salary for the intervening period during which they were thrown out of their services, but of no avail. 5. The contention of the Counsel for the appellants was that similarly situated the retrenched Assistant Teachers belonging to Godda under control of District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers pursuant to the advertisement dated 7.3.1981 and subsequently retrenched, were granted payment of arrears for the intervening period by the order of D S.E., Gddda as contained in memo No. 646(M) dated 22.6.2002 pursuant to the) order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5721 of 1991 in Anil Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. on 3.3.2000. 6. The Counsel for the appellants further contended that 5 Assistant Teachers viz. Prahiad Pandit and Ors., who were reinstated after undergoing the selecting process and were reappointed initially along with the appellants have been granted arrears of salary for the intervening period during which they were thrown out, under the orders of District Superintendent of Education, Godda vide memo No. 179 dated 14.3.2002. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants, further submitted that the appellants reappointment was made as against the vacancies existing prior to 1.1.1992 as would be evident from the chart of vacancy dated 8.12.1991 as contained in Annexure-2 and according to the chart total vacancy was 795 but only 640 Assistant Teaches including the appellants were reappointed after undergoing due process for the existing vacancy much prior to 1.1.1992. It was further contended that the termination of the appellants was quashed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7000/1992 by the order dated 20.1.1993 on account of baseless and groundless order and there fore their continuity did not break. Yet, the appellants were denied payment of arrears of salary and similarly situated other teachers were granted arrears of salary for the intervening period as contained in Annexure-7 & 8. 8. The learned Counsel Mr. Yet, the appellants were denied payment of arrears of salary and similarly situated other teachers were granted arrears of salary for the intervening period as contained in Annexure-7 & 8. 8. The learned Counsel Mr. Tandon emphatically submitted that the Honble Single Judge erred by overlooking, that similarly situated teachers of Godda were given arrears of salary for the intervening period as this fact contained in paragraph ?4 of the writ petition and in reply to that the answering respondents, in the counter affidavit, expressed no comment in paragraph 23 which shall be deemed to be an admission but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ by observing as follows: Admittedly, the petitioners were reappointed as per the judgment of the Supreme Court In S.L.P.(C) No. 10051 of 1990 and the order dated 20.1.1993, passed by Patna High Court In C.W.J.C. No. 7000 of 1992 In which, petitioners were also parties, and as per the said judgment a panel was prepared on 24.8.1994. In terns of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, It was ordered that if the reappointment of any teacher Is done against the vacancies available prior to 1.1.1992 then they will be entitled to salary from 1.7.1992 till the date of reappointment after approval of the Director, Primary Education, but the teachers, appointed against the vacancies occurring after 1.1.1992, will not be entitled to the salary, for the Intervening period. This position was clarified in the said case of the State of Bihar v. Deepak Kumar Mandal (Supra). Annexure-9, relied by Mr. Sharma, is merely an opinion of D.S.E., Sahibganj. In the counter affidavit It has been specially stated that petitioners were given reappointment against the vacancies occurring after the said cut off dated 1.7.1992. It has also been specially denied that other similarly situated teachers were given salary for the Intervening period. The said counter affidavit was filed as far back as on 2.8.2004 but the said statements made therein have not been controverted by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances noticed above find no merit In this writ petition, which Is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs. 9. On the other hand, Mr. The said counter affidavit was filed as far back as on 2.8.2004 but the said statements made therein have not been controverted by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances noticed above find no merit In this writ petition, which Is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Prnadip Modi, learned G.P -I contended that the present appeal is fully covered by the order dated 9.7.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4084/20Q2(Annexure A) and upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 513 of 2003 (Annexure-3) or 6.7.2007. As such, the present appeal, in view of the ratio decided, is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Modi further submitted that a panel of 619 c and dates was prepared by the State Government vide memo No. 813 dated 24.8.1994 who were reappointed against the vacancies accruing after 1.1.1992 during the period 1997-2000. None of 619 candidates including the appellants who were appointed from the panel as contained in the said memo dated 24.8.1994 was paid arrears in view of the decisions referred to above (Annexure-A and B). 10. Mr. Modi emphatically submitted that the appellants presented their case by pleading that they were reinstated/reappointed prior to 1.1,92 against the vacancies as shown by the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj dated 8.12.1991 (Annexure-2) and according to the said chart total vacancy of the Assistant Teachers in the Elementary Schools in the District of Sahibyanj was 795. The panel was prepared on 24.8.1994 (Annexure-4) and accordingly 640 Assistant Teachers including the appellants were impanelled sifter due process of reinstatement/reappointment. Mr. Modi, strongly disputed Annexure-2 by assailing it to be a forged and fabricated document since not being available in the official records. Besides, the basis on which the chart (Annexure-2) was prepared by the D.S.E., Sahibganj was not known to the respondents as clearly stated in paragraph No. 22 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 4 District Superintendent of Education, Pakur. Respondent No. 4 further stated that the then District Superintendent of Education, Pakur Sri Murlidhar Pandey was put to criminal prosecution for committing gross illegality and irregularity by giving unwarranted benefits to the teachers by way of issuing fabricated orders. Respondent No. 4 further stated that the then District Superintendent of Education, Pakur Sri Murlidhar Pandey was put to criminal prosecution for committing gross illegality and irregularity by giving unwarranted benefits to the teachers by way of issuing fabricated orders. Moreover, the appellants were appointed in the District of Pakur hence their claim at par with the teachers appointed in another District cannot sustain where the legality of he order passed by the D.S.E., Sahibganj is under challenge and such officer is facing criminal prosecution of graft charges under I.P.C. and uncle; penal Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. Mr. Modi clarified that, in fact, the case of the appellants was similar to Ravi Kant Pandoy and 8 others whose names also appeared in the panel prepared vide memo No. 1813 dated 24.8.1994 and their claim for arrears was dismissed by the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4084 of 2002 as also in L.P.A. No. 518 of 2003. 11. Concluding his argument Mr. Modi submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 4084 of 200i on 9.07.2003 held assuming that the petitioners, were reinstated instead of their reappointment, even then, question of payment of salary did not arise as admittedly, they did not work for the long period of 14-15 years and such finding was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 518 of 2003. The present appeal, according to Mr. Modi is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we fine that the appellants have claimed arrears of salary for the long period of 14- 5 years when they were retrenched/thrown out from their teaching job. 13. The Apex Court of India while disposing of S.L.P.(C)No. 10051 of 1990 on 30.1.1392 directed that a panel of teachers whose services were terminated during the year 1984-85 be prepared after they undergo screening test and verification of their credentials. It was further directed that the persons who were appointed from the waiting list panel against vacancies occurring before 1.1.1992 would be entitled for salary from 1.7.1992 till the date of re-appointment and those teachers appointed against the vacancies occurring after 1.1/992 would lot be entitled for arrears of salary till their appointment. It was further directed that the persons who were appointed from the waiting list panel against vacancies occurring before 1.1.1992 would be entitled for salary from 1.7.1992 till the date of re-appointment and those teachers appointed against the vacancies occurring after 1.1/992 would lot be entitled for arrears of salary till their appointment. We find that this direction was quoted by the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C)No. 88 of 1994 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 5148 of 1992. The Apex Court in "Birend a Kumar and Ors. v. A. Vijay Raghwan and Ors." observed: Those in the panel who were appointed in the vacancy as they existed on 1 st January, 1992 would be given the benefits as have been directed to be-given in the orders in question. However if they are appointed in the vacancies which arose after 1.1.1092, the period of break in service of not more than 1 year would be reckoned for the purpose other than the salary. 14. We are conscious of the argument of Mr. Tandon on behalf of the appellant that the appellants were appointed as against the vacancies accrued before 1.1.1992 in view of the vacancy posit on as contained in Annexure-2 to this appeal and that out of 795. vacancies of teachers 685 teachers were appointed as per the status report dated 8.12.1991 but this fact could not be substantiated before the writ court by cogent material documents. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Modi assailed Annexure-2 on the ground that it was spurious and forged which was created by the then District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj Sri Murlidhar Pandey with the intention for making excessive payment to the teachers and to help the unscrupulous persons at the cost of State exchequer and for that he was facing criminal prosecution. 16. We find that the appellants have put their claims against the respondents relying upon Annexure-2 of this appeal but failed to substantiate that it was a genuine document. The respondents have clearly stated that Annexure-2. was not authentic and it was a creation of the then D.S.E., Sahibganj who is facing criminal charges under I.P.C. as well as under P.C. Act. We find from the discussions made herein above, the appellants failed to prove that they were appointed as against the vacancies accrued prior to 1.1.1992. The respondents have clearly stated that Annexure-2. was not authentic and it was a creation of the then D.S.E., Sahibganj who is facing criminal charges under I.P.C. as well as under P.C. Act. We find from the discussions made herein above, the appellants failed to prove that they were appointed as against the vacancies accrued prior to 1.1.1992. We further observe that the appellants failed to show any ground that they are entitled to their claims of the arrears of salary or the period they were not in service for about 14 years, much less the monetary benefits as observed by the Supreme Court in S.LP.(c) No. 10051 of 1990 for the limited purpose if they being found appointed against the vacancy accrued on or before 1.1.1992. We hold therefore, that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 5199 of 2002 on 27.6.2007 does not call for interference. This appeal is dismissed No order as to cost.