B. L. Yadav, J.

1. By an order dated 25.1.1995 a Division Bench of this court referred these analogous Writ petitions to be heard by a larger Bench as they involve questions of law of far reaching importance, pursuant to that the Hon ble the Chief Justice constituted this Special Bench. This is how these petitions have been placed before us.

2. Whether these analogous writ petitions preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution would be maintainable, even though on administrative side while passing the impugned orders directing that the petitioners were not entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, every members of this bench was participant in the deliberations of the Full Court and whether doctrine of Necessity was applicable, and whether the impugned orders have been passed after following the procedure under Rule 3 (10) of Rules of patna High Court (for short the Rules)read with Rule 74 of Bihar Service code (for short the Service Code) and what are actually the contours of the judicial review in such matters and whether under the facts and circumstances of the case petitioners are entitled to the enhancement of the age of superannuation