1. (Per: Honble the Chief Justice) (Order Dt. 30.8.2011) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 11th April, 2011 made by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC No. 13550 of 2010.

2. The matter at issue is whether the appellant, by virtue of her appointment as a sweeper made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Vaishaii on 20th April, 1987, has a right to continue in service and whether the termination of her service by order dated 28th February, 2003 on account of her appointment being illegai is sustainable or not.

3. Under order dated 20th February, 1987 made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Vaishaii, the petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in the pay scale of Rs. 350-425 with admissible allowances and was posted at Primary Health Centre, Sahdei Bujurg. The said appointment was made pursuant to the application made by the appellant on 25th November, 1982.

4. It appears that at the relevant time several such appointments were made by the Civil Surgeon. All such appointments were under scrutiny by the State Government. To facilitate such enquiry under order dated 8th February, 2003, the petitioner was called upon to produce various documents, such as appointment letter, interview call letter, credentials, transfer and confirmation order, etc.

5. Pursuant to the scrutiny of the documents, the appointment of the appellant was found to be illegally made without following the due process. Consequently by order dated 28th February, 2003 the petitioners service was terminated. The said order was challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 3226 of 2003.

6. The learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Narayan Roy, J.) by common judgment dated 8th September, 2003 [2003 (4) PLJR 282] allowed the said and the other writ petitions and directed the State Government to reinstate the writ petitioners in service. The said judgment was challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and other appeals. The said appeals were decided by common judgment dated 26th June, 2006 [2006(3) PLJR 386]. The Bench relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi & Ors. [2006(2) PLJR (SC)363] and with consensus of the iearned Advocates disposed of the appeals "with a direction to the authorities of the Health Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the cases of all the affected employees with a view to find out on the basis of relevant facts and law as settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi & Ors. (supra) as to which of such affected employees are fit for regularization in terms of the judgment, particularly in terms of paragraph 44 of the judgment". In other words the Bench confirmed the finding of illegal appointment. Remand was for limited purpose to ascertain whether any of the said employees could be given the benefit of regularization in service as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra). The said judgment was not carried further and attained finality.

7. In view of the aforesaid direction, the matters were reconsidered by the State Government by appointing a Committee of five persons especially for that purpose. While considering the cases, the said Committee examined each case to answer (i) whether the appointment was made on a sanctioned and vacant post; (ii) whether the appointment was made by the competent authority; (iii) whether on the date of appointment, the concerned employee was eligible for such appointment; (iv) whether such employee had served continuously for ten years; and (v) whether there was any order made by any court in respect of such employees.

8. Having examined each such appointment, the committee found that 358 appointments were made on the basis of forged documents; 228 appointments were