A. K. Ganguly, J.

1. These four Letters patent Appeals were heard analogously as they were filed against one judgment and involve common questions of fact and law.

2. All these four Letters Patent appeals were filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge delivered in c. W. J. C. No.7995 of 1990 on 23rd december, 1994 whereby His Lordship quashed the appointment of 285 persons made by the Speaker to the posts of Assistants, Typists, Hindi Research assistant, Hindi Expert, Security, durban, Daftari, Sweeper, Peon, all class III and Class IV Posts, as in the opinion of the learned Single Judge such appointments were in violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Out of those four appeals, L. P. A. No.20 of 1995 was filed by the Bihar legislative Assembly through its secretary Sri Yugal Kishore Prasad and the other three appeals, namely, L. P. A. Nos, 22 of 1995, 23 of 1995 and 25 of 1995 were filed by those persons whose appointments were quashed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment as aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the judgment of the first Court ).

4. It appears that most of the appellants in L. P. A. Nos.22 of 1995, 23 of 1995 and 25 of 1995 were not parties before the learned Single Judge but as their appointments were set aside by the judgment of the first Court, they filed these appeals and those appeals were heard analogously by a Division Bench of this Court.

5. In the judgment that was delivered by the said Division Bench on 3.4.1996, there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division B ench. B. L. A Yadav, J. , (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to hold that the judgment of the first court cannot be maintained and allowed all these appeals for the reasons given in His Lordships judgment. The other Member of the Division Bench s. K. Singh, J. , by his separate judgment, however, upheld the judgment of the first Couit and dismissed the Letters patent Appeals for the reasons recorded separately in the judgment of His lordship. In the concluding portion of judgment of the Division Bench in these letters Patent Appeals, the learned judges gave direction to the Office for placing the appeals before the Hohble the Chief Justice for nominating a third Hon ble Judge to hear and decide the matter.

6. Thereupon the matter was placed before the Hon ble the Chief justice and His Lordship referred the matter to by His Lordhsips order dated 25th June, 19%. Then on the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellants, the appeals were placed for hearing.

7. On going through the judgment of the learned Judge of the first Court, it appears that the writ petitioners pleaded that they were duly qualified to fill up the posts at the relevant point of time but they could not apply for the posts of Assistants, Typist, Routine clerk, Peon, etc. In the Assembly as no application was invited from the prospective candidates through any employment exchange. Nor was any advertisement issued inviting applications for appointment to those posts. The grievance in the writ petition was that apart from respondent Nos.6 to 17, 234 persons were appointed to various posts of Assistants, Typists, Hindi Research assistants, Hindi Experts, Security guards, Darban, Daftari, Peon, Sweeper by the Speaker of the Assembly between 15th June, 1990 and 1st November, 1990 by issuing different appointment letters without any advertisement and without holding any competitive examination or selection test. It is further stated that the minimum academic qualification required for appointment to the posts of assistants in Assembly is Bachelor degree in Arts, Science or Commerce and for the post of Personal Assistants, bachelor degree in the same faculties having the knowledge of shorthand and typing with a minimum speed of 80 to 120 words per minute. For the post of typist, degree of Intermediate having a knowledge of typing with the minimum speed of 30 words pe