JUDGMENT :

1. Since the present group of petitions arise out of the same issue and facts, the same are heard and decided analogously by this common judgment and order.

2. All the writ-petitioners are seeking a direction to consider their case and grant similar reliefs to the petitioners, which are granted to the original petitioners / opponents of Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters.

3. All the petitioners had applied to the post of Shikshan Sahayak, Secondary Grant-in-Aid School, pursuant to the advertisement published in the month of April 2016, accordingly, the merit-list was prepared by the State and the present petitioners have given their choice of posting as per the preference indicated in their application forms.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not offered the post as per their preference, which were indicated in the application forms. The aforesaid selection process, which was initiated pursuant to the advertisement of April 2016, was challenged before this Court by filing various writ-petitions, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the entire recruitment process, which constrained the State authorities to challenge the said judgment and order before the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 by issuing various directions, one of those which was indicated in paragraph No.7(4) to the effect that the order passed by the Division Bench only applies to those candidates, who have approached this Court by filing the writ-petitions.

5. It appears that thereafter, the present petitioners filed various writ-petitions before this Court, however, the same were disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide the case of the petitioners in view of the judgment and order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. Accordingly, the State Government considered the representation and rejected the same for the reasons that the said judgement of the Division Bench would not apply in their cases, as the State Government was prohibited to do so in view of the aforesaid paragraph No.7(4) since the judgment of the Division Bench only applies to the writ-petitioners, who had approached this Court.

6. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred a Review Application on the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 being Civil Application (Review) No.292 of 2021, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.07.2021 by deleting the observations made in paragraph No.7(4) of the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. It was observed by the Division Bench that accordingly, the case of the present petitioners may be considered independently on its own merits. The petitioners again made a representation in view of the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Civil Application (Review) No.292 of 2021, which was rejected by the impugned orders, which are challenged in the present writ-petitions.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Sudhansu Jha has submitted that after the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 16.07.2021 in Civil Application No.292 of 2021, the respondents were required to give the same benefits, which are given to the original petitioners, who were the opponents of Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. He has submitted that subsequently the Division Bench has deleted paragraph No.7(4) of the judgment dated 11.01.2018, which restricted the benefits to those petitioners only, hence the present petitioners are also entitled to the same benefits, which are extended to 63 candidates. Learned advocate Mr. Jha has submitted that out of 63 petitioners, 40 of such petitioners have already resumed their duties in the schools, which were allotted to them and the present petitioners cannot be discriminated and they are required to be place