1. Leave granted
2. The appellant herein was appointed as a clerk in the education department in the State of Bihar. The services of the appellant as well as similarly situated 12 other clerks were terminated by a composite order dated 14.5.1997, The other clerks whose services were terminated filed writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the order of termination. The said writ petition was numbered as CWJC No. 6183/97. The appellant also challenged the composite order dated 14.5.1997 terminating his services. CWJC No. 6183/97 came up for hearing and was allowed by the High Court. The composite order dated 14.5.1997 terminating the services of 13 clerks was set aside.
3. After the decision in CWJC No. 6183/97 by the High Court, the appellant contacted the district education officer, Bhagalpur that he may also be reinstated in view of the judgment rendered in CWJC No. 6183/97. The district education officer, Bhagalpur, represented to the appellant that in case he withdraws his writ petition, he will also be reinstated. In that view of the matter, when the appellant's writ petition came up for hearing, a statement was made by the counsel for the appellant that since he has already obtained relief in CWJC No. 6183/ 97, his grievance is redressed and, therefore, the writ petition was not pressed. The High Court after noting the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant as not pressed.
4. Thereafter, the writ petitions filed by other similarly situated clerks were also allowed by the High Court following a decision rendered in CWJC No. 6183/97. However, when the appellant contacted the district education officer, Bhagalpur, for his reinstatement, he declined to reinstate him as, according to him, the benefit of the judgment can be given only to those whose writ petitions have been allowed.
5. Under such circumstances, the appellant filed a second writ petition before the High Court giving the entire facts and circumstances under which the earlier writ petition was not pressed. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and, therefore, the second writ petition for the same relief was not maintainable. The appellant thereafter filed letters patent appeal before the division bench of the High Court, but the same was dismissed. It is against the same judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition.
6. It is not disputed that services of 13 clerks, including the appellant were terminated by a composite order. It is also not disputed that the writ petitions filed by similarly situated employees were allowed by the High Court and they were reinstated in the service. It is also not disputed that the case of the appellant was identical to the case in writ petition CWJC No. 6183/97. We are, therefore, of the view that in view of special facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant's writ petition was required to be dealt with on merits or in any case, the writ petition could have been converted into a review petition.
7. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge and send the case back to the High Court to decide the matter, if possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
8. The appeal is allowed with costs.