no material to demonstrate that on 09.08.2019, when the DLC had held its meeting, vacancy for the year 2014-15 was available. Thirdly, it is not in dispute that the order dated 19.09.2016, dismissing the writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 4980/2016, filed by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment has attained finality as such the present writ petition is held to be barred by principles of res judicata as well as issue estoppel. Fourthly, it is not in dispute that as per ratio laid down in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), as on 09.08.2019, when DLC had held its meeting more than two years from the date of application had lapsed. Fifthly, now the O.M. No. ABP.50/ 2006/ Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015, for compassionate appointment is in force and under the said OM, the 5% vacancy is required to be considered on cadre strength and not number of vacancies available. Sixthly, on a perusal of the case of Pankaj Kumar Mahato (supra), on which the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is heavily relying upon, it is seen that the judgment dated 19.09.2016 of this Court in the case of the present petitioner, i.e. Md. Hafizur Rahman (supra), had not been brought to the notice of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which the petitioner has allowed to attain finality. Seventhly, the case of Pankaj Kumar Mahato (supra), was decided, amongst others, on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 and State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571. The said two judgments were by a Coram of Two Hon’ble Judges. However, later on, the Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 1401: (2020) 7 SCC 617: 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 237, after considering the case of Canara Bank (supra) and several other cases, held as follows:
