Basanti Kachhap and ors., Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

educational service - appointment of assistant teachers in primary school--panel prepared for ranch) district--petitioners empanelled in 1987--their claim that in spite of possessing requisite qualifications and training, they were not appointed--it was not desirable to make appointment out of such panels, which were prepared in 1987 and specially after it was held unconstitutional--held, petitioners not entitled to get any relief--petitions for directions for respondents to appoint them--liable to be dismissed. - motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - the state of bihar and others, 1996 (1) all plr 273, wherein exactly in the similar circumstance, like the petitioners' grievance herein, it was held that it was not desirable to make appointment out of such panels, which were prepared in 1987 and specially after it was held unconstitutional by decision in anil kumar (supra). 6. in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners herein are not entitled to get any relief from this court.gurusharan sharma, j.1. heard, petitioners in these five writ applications claim to have been empanelled in 1987, panel prepared for ranchi district for appointment of assistant teachers in primary schools. their claim is that in-spite of possessing requisite qualification and training, they were not appointed. a direction, therefore, was sought to be given to the respondents to appoint them.2. in this regard, reference may be made to the decision in anil kumar v. chief secretary, 1987 pljr 846, wherein such panels prepared districtwise for appointment of assistant teachers in primary schools in the year 1985 were declared unconstitutional. however, appointment already made from those panels earlier were not disturbed.3. reference may also be made to a division bench decision in birendra kumar srivastava and ors. v. state of bihar and ors. 1991 (2) pljr 18, wherein again such panel prepared districtwise was declared unconstitutional and appointments made therefrom in the meantime were also quashed.4. the state government, thereafter, issued circular dated 2.7.1989 to prepare a combined panel for appointment to the post of teachers and a liberty was given to those, who were already in the panels prepared districtwise that they were also covered by the said circular.5. reference in this regard may be made to another division bench decision in ramji tiwari and ors. v. the state of bihar and others, 1996 (1) all plr 273, wherein exactly in the similar circumstance, like the petitioners' grievance herein, it was held that it was not desirable to make appointment out of such panels, which were prepared in 1987 and specially after it was held unconstitutional by decision in anil kumar (supra).6. in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners herein are not entitled to get any relief from this court. these five writ applications are, accordingly, dismissed but without costs.7. writ applications dismissed.