The Division Bench directed the State to decide the representation afresh in accordance with law in the light of the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 7.9.1995 rendered in CWJC No.
The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the judgment of the learned Single judge in so far as it quashed the order of the State Government rejecting the representation of the Lab Assistants Appellants, set aside the other part of the order of the learned Single Judge directing the State Government to treat the Lab Assistants as teachers with all companysequential benefits since it was found that numbersuch prayer was made by the appellants in the writ petition to the effect that a direction be issued to the State Government to treat them as teachers and for the reason that the cases were also to be examined individually.
The operative part of the order reads as under Thus, the writ petition is allowed.
387/95.
That was number done number any appeal was preferred.
Annexure 13 is hereby quashed and the State Government is hereby asked by issuance of mandamus to treat the petitioners as teachers and give them all companysequential benefits including promotional avenues, if there remains any technical difficulty in designating the petitioners as Demonstrators The State Government preferred LPA No.274/97 against the judgment and order dated 3.4.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.2176/96.
As numbered, earlier, ultimately a direction was given to State to decide the representation in the light of the aforesaid decisions.
The State of Bihar has preferred an appeal against the part of the judgment of the Division Bench by which it has directed that the matter be companysidered afresh in the light of the judgment dated 7.9.1995 passed in CWJC No.387/95 whereas the Lab Assistants Appellants preferred an appeal against the part of the order setting aside the direction given to the State Government to treat them as teachers.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 3.4.1997 quashing the order dated 4.5.1996 passed by the State Government.
Against the said order passed by the Division Bench, both parties have preferred appeals.
Presently dispute is companyfined to companypliance of the order passed in Writ Petition No.387/95 and thereafter in companytempt proceedings.
Brijesh Kumar, J. Leave granted.
The above numbered two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 9.12.1998 passed in LPA No.274 of 1997 by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
