JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. These 4(four) Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment and order dt. 27.8.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in four Writ Applications disposing them of in one order. 2. The respondent No. 1 in each of the writ appeal had filed the four writ petitions separately and all the four writ petitions were disposed of in a common judgment by the learned Single Judge on 27.8.08. Challenging the said judgment and order of the learned single Judge, these four appeals have been preferred by the State authorities. 3. The brief background of the case is that it was the consistent policy of the Government to persuade the armed youths/rebels to surrender in order to start a fresh life and come back to the mainstream. In order to encourage such armed youths/rebels to come back to the mainstream, a scheme was framed by the Government of Manipur known as, "Scheme for surrender cum-Rehabilitation of Militants in Northeast". The scheme was brought by the Government in its order dt. 19.4.1999 wherein sufficient provisions were made for taking care of such youths to rehabilitate them. As per the scheme, if such a youth or rebel surrenders, he would be kept in a rehabilitation camp where training shall be imparted in a trade/vocation and a sum of Rs. 2000/- shall also be paid every month. 4. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 291 of 2008 (Respondent in W.A. No. 27/11) surrendered before the SP, Imphal East, Manipur on 2.9.2000 with 1(one).38 Pistol. Thereafter, he was kept in the rehabilitation camp. It is alleged by him that stipend of Rs. 2000/- per month had not been paid for 11 months but it was disputed by the learned State counsel and it was stated that he had been paid a sum of Rs. 5621 and outstanding amount was Rs. 18,379/- The petitioner in the said writ petition also alleges that after completion of the period in the rehabilitation camp, though he had been recommended by the Special Screening Committee for being appointed as Sweeper, no such appointment has been offered to him. Petitioner in W.P(C) No. 289/08 (Respondent No. 1 in WP(C) 28/11) surrendered before the DIG (Range-II) on 28.8.2000 whereas the respondent No. 2 in the said appeal surrendered before the SP, Bishnupur on 15.2.2001. Petitioner in W.P(C) No. 289/08 (Respondent No. 1 in WP(C) 28/11) surrendered before the DIG (Range-II) on 28.8.2000 whereas the respondent No. 2 in the said appeal surrendered before the SP, Bishnupur on 15.2.2001. The respondent No. 3 in the said appeal surrendered before the then SP, Imphal West Manipur in the month of December, 2001. Thereafter all the three of them were kept in the Rehabilitation Camp, Imphal West Commando Complex. They also made a similar complaint with regard to non-payment of stipend. Their further case was that though they have been recommended by the special DPC for appointment to the posts of Follower, no such appointment has been offered to them. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 309 of 2008 (Respondent No. 1 in WA No. 29/2011) surrendered before the SP, Imphal East on 10.12.2000 with one AK 56 Rifle with four magazines containing 120 bullets and one hand grenade. He was also kept in the rehabilitation centre. His complaint is that he was not paid full stipend and even though he was recommended by the special DPC to be appointed as Follower, no such appointment has been offered to him. Petitioners in W.P(C) No. 338 of 2008 (Respondents-1 to 4 in WA No. 126/11) have also similar case. The respondent No. 1 surrendered before the SP, Imphal West on 25.1.2001; the respondent No. 2 surrendered before the Addl. DGP (PHW) on 1.2.2001 with 1.AK Rifle; the respondent No. 3 surrendered before the SP, Imphal West on 1.10.2000 and the respondent No. 4 surrendered on 11.12.1999. They were also imparted training in the rehabilitation camp for one year. Their complaint is also similar as that of others with regard to non payment of stipend. Their further case is that even though they have been recommended by the DPC to be appointed as Followers, they have not been offered any such appointment. 5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, referred to the scheme prepared by the State Government and directed to consider appointment of the respondents in all the writ appeals either against the post of Sweeper or Follower as recommended within a period of three months. 6. 5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, referred to the scheme prepared by the State Government and directed to consider appointment of the respondents in all the writ appeals either against the post of Sweeper or Follower as recommended within a period of three months. 6. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State in all the four writ appeals, submitted that though the respondents in all the writ appeals had surrendered and as per the scheme had been imparted training in the rehabilitation camp, they could not be given appointment in terms of the recommendation made by the Special DPC/Screening Committee due to non availability of vacant posts. According to the learned Advocate General, out of the vacant posts, some had been earmarked to accommodate the children of deceased employees under the die-in-harness scheme and rest of the posts had been filled up. Therefore, there was no scope to offer appointment to the respondents in absence of any vacant post. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, in all the four writ appeals, submitted that a similar objection was raised by the State in another case and Court, after verification of the records, did not accept the plea taken by the State and directed for appointment of those surrenderrees against the posts for which they had been recommended by the Special DPC. Reference, in this connection, be made to a decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of State of Manipur & Anr. Vs. Moirangthem Sana Singh reported in : 2011(5) GLT 774. In the said reported case, the respondent was a hardcore Member of a banned organization, namely RPF/PLA. He surrendered before the Government and laid his arms. He was also kept in the rehabilitation camp for obtaining training and has been recommended to be appointed as Follower. Having not been given any appointment as per the recommendation, he had filed the writ petition. A similar stand was taken by the State with regard to non availability of post for offering them appointment. Division Bench, while hearing the appeal, called for the relevant records and in para 14 of the judgment, observed that there were 54 vacancies in the post of Follower in the Unit of M.R. IRB and 67 vacancies in CDO in civil post as on 1.9.2008. Division Bench, while hearing the appeal, called for the relevant records and in para 14 of the judgment, observed that there were 54 vacancies in the post of Follower in the Unit of M.R. IRB and 67 vacancies in CDO in civil post as on 1.9.2008. Considering the large number of vacancies existing then, the Court disposed of the writ appeal directing to issue formal appointment order to the respondents therein. 8. If so many posts were available to be filled up as on 1.9.08, there was no reason for not considering the case of the present respondents and give them appointment in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge impugned before us. From the said judgment, it is clear that on the date of delivery of the judgment, impugned in the appeal, 54 vacancies in the post of Follower and 67 vacancies in CDO, as stated above, were available to be filled up. We are, therefore, of the view that the case of the respondents in all the four writ appeals is covered by the above judgment of the Gauhati High Court and State cannot discriminate in the matter of appointment under the scheme. 9. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ appeals.