1. In view of the reasons contained in the affidavit in support of the limitation petitions and having heard counsel for other sides, the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned.

2. These appeals have been filed by State of Bihar and others being aggrieved by the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7500 of 2009 and other analogous cases.

3. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, respondents herein questioning the order of termination of services of the writ petitioners on the report submitted by the Five Men Committee constituted under the direction of the High Court in L.P.A. No.946 of 2003. It is also contended that the report has put the services of the employees in three categories, irregular, illegal and forged. He has further submitted that the petitioners, respondents herein who have been treated either illegal or in forged category, were recommended for termination of their services.

4. The facts of the case before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioners were appointed long back right from 1969 to 1987 and after continuing in services for long time they were terminated from services and payment of salary paid to them were held to be illegal by the authorities who were not competent to take such decision. It is further stated that in some of the cases it has been said that the appointments were not made against the sanctioned posts after following the procedure for regular and legal appointment and therefore such appointments are illegal. In some of the cases it is said that the appointment letters on the basis of which petitioners were appointed were not issued from the office of those authorities who are said to be the appointing authority and therefore the appointments made on the basis of such appointment letters have been treated to be forged.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar before the learned Single Judge, stating therein, that when question of their appointments were subjected to an enquiry and salary of some of the writ petitioners, respondents herein were withheld, they approached this Court for a direction to pay their salaries by filing different writ petitions, upon which a direction was issued by this Court for payment of salary as there was no adverse finding against the genuineness or legality of their appointment. It was also further contended that the enquiry has proceeded in almost all the cases and the termination order was issued in most of the cases on the ground that on the basis of forged letters appointments were made and also on the ground that the appointment letters were issued by the incompetent authority against the unsanctioned posts and also that the appointments were made without observing the selection process and without advertising the posts.

6. The aforesaid action of the State Government terminating the services of the writ petitioners, respondents herein was subjected to challenge by filing different writ applications, one of which is C.W.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003. It has further been contended before the learned Single Judge that in some of the cases in which termination orders were not quashed, L.P.A. has been filed. Appeals were also filed by the State against the orders quashing termination orders. The L.P.As and the pending writ petitions have been heard together and the L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and other analogous cases were disposed of by this Court.

7. The point for determination before the Court was with regard to continuing in serving of the writ petitioners for a several periods including the equity and in some of the cases age of the writ petitioners for new appointment had expired.

8. The batch of the cases were disposed of by this Court without going into the merits of the case and a direction was issued to the State Government to decide the cases of the writ petitioners, respondents herein in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of K