Similarly situated persons should not be discriminated against, and State authorities are expected to act fairly, especially when their actions are challenged in court.

( 1 ) 55 writ petitioners came before this Court being prompted by the order of the Division Bench passed in appeal where similarly circumstanced candidates were given relief by this Court.

( 2 ) THE principal grievance on which the writ petitioners prayed for redressal has been summarised in paragraph 41 of the writ petition which is quoted below:"an and by way of recording a notorious fact in the subject, your petitioners may mention that on 11. 10. 1980 was Saturday, the officials of the President, Ad-hoc Committee, prepared the appointment letters of 1965 candidates out of which only 600 trained candidates were included and after the preparation of the appointment letters, the President, Ad-hoc Committee, i. e. the appointing authority had put his signatures on the appointment letters, the same were distributed at the residence of those candidates from Sunday evening to Monday morning. The appointment letters had not even been posted and all the candidates got their appointment letters at their residence. The next very day, i. e. on Monday, the 15th October, 1980, 1965 candidates went to their respective school with the letter of appointment for joining. Those candidates informed the head of the institution to the effect that they have come to join the said school as an assistant teacher and had requested the school authority to accept the joining report and to return those joining report for submission in direct to the Sub-Inspector of Schools for necessary action immediately".

( 3 ) FOUR orders according to me, are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition. The first order is dated 17th September, 1989 passed in Sirazul Haque's case (C. R. No. 2522 (W) of 1982) where 108 writ petitioners being similarly circumstanced with the present writ petitioners came before this Court and their writ petitions were disposed of by B. P. Banerjee, J. directing the respondents to create and/or sanction posts within four weeks for giving appointment to those 108 writ petitioners as Assistant Primary Teacher in Nadia District. The said order was appealed from by the authority and the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 14th February, 1989 wherein by consent of the parties the appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench provided over by the then Chief Justice P. D. Desai wherein the appeal was disposed of in favour of the petitioners with certain modifications. The said order was passed by consent of parties appearing in the said matter. The order of the Court of appeal is appearing at page 121 of the writ petition. Despite such order being passed the respondents authority did not act in terms of the Court of appeal which prompted the said 108 writ petitioners to file a contempt proceeding. The contempt proceeding has been disposed by the Division Bench by an order dated June 30, 1989 wherein the respondents-authority appeared and submitted that the order of the Court of appeal would be implemented in the manner stipulated in the said order dated June 30, 1989. Another set of writ petitioners led by one Dibakar Pal approached this Court. Their writ petitions were also disposed of by the learned single Judge by an order dated January 13, 1991 wherein the said 67 writ petitioners were directed to be absorbed, here also the respondents-authority did not comply with the order resulting in a contempt proceeding which was ultimately disposed of by S. B. Sinha, J by an order dated June 23, 1999. That order is appearing at page 116 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners wherein it was recorded that the respondents-authority would comply with the said order within 10 days from the said date and on such assurance the contempt rule was disposed of. In the said order dated June 23, 1999 it was submitted by the respondents-authority that the District Primary School Council in its meeting held on June 15, 1999 decided to give employment to 88 petitioners in the case of Dibakar Pal. On