Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. These matters were referred to Full Bench vide order dated 21.1.1998 by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4177 of 1995.

3. The issues involved in these writ applications are:

(i) as to whether the employees working in Work Charged Establishment and promoted to Class III posts, their continuance in regular establishment would be violative of Articles of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;

(ii) whether the employees brought on regular side by promotion/regularisation can be reverted after long continuance of their services;

(iii) whether the employees already working in regular establishment on Class IV posts either on contractual or casual basis can be regularised/promoted on Class III posts without following the procedure and mandate of law, and whether the same exercise would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Grievances of the writ petitioners are either against the order of reversion to their substantive posts or against the cancellation of their regularisation/promotion on Class III posts.

5. Initially, the plea was taken by the petitioners before the learned single Judge of this Court that the order of reversion from regular establishemnt to Work Charged Establishment and cancellation of their regularisation in respective cases would be sustainable, as they continued on the posts as such for a longer period and they discharged their duties on the aforesaid posts satisfactorily.

6. The learned single Judge of this Court in view of a Bench decision in case of Ashok Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others (1994(2) B.L.J., 499) and Bench decision of this Court in case of Vijay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others (1993(1) P.L.J.R., 99) referred these matters to a Division Bench. The Division Bench consequently referred the same to the Full Bench.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners contended that cases of the writ petitioners were scrutinised and the authorities having found their performances satisfactory regularised them from Work Charged Establishment to regular establishment and also the cases of those, who were regularised from Class IV posts to Class III posts in regular establishment itself. It is further contended that the writ petitioners while were duly qualified and eligible for the posts and after iong continuance on the regularised posts, in no manner, orders impugned could have been passed reverting them back or cancelling their regularisation.

8. It is also contended by respective counsel for the petitioners that even assuming that initial appointment/engagement of the writ petitioners was wrong and they did not obtain appointment/regularisation by means of any fraud or misrepresentation and their services were regularised, the question of validity of appointment/ regularisation cannot be gone into by the authorities, and, thus, the order of reversion and cancellation of their regularisation would be violative of the principles of equity and acquiescence.

9. In this connection, reference was made to case of Ashok Kumar and Others (supra). Learned counsel also placed reliance upon case of Abhay Kumar Pandey V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. [2000(2) P.L.J.R., 115], which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

10. It is the further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that services of the writ petitioners would be governed by the P.W.D. Code and the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution. Emphasis was made to the provisions of P.W.D. Code and it was contended that posts of Work Charged Establishment, which are permanent in nature, as for example required for twelve months in a year and for long and indefinite period, will be made permanent and included in the permanent establishment and men employed on these posts having one years approved services will be included amongst permanent Government employees