This group of matters raise a common issue. They are, therefore, decided by this common judgment. Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the respondent- State Government arise from a common judgment and order dated 6th October 2009 passed by the learned single Judge and the orders made on different dates by the learned single Judges in respective writ petitions. Some of these Appeals, viz. Letters Patent Appeal No. 560 of 2010 and some others were earlier heard by the Bench of this Court. Under respective orders, the Bench had referred the matters to a Committee comprising Justice Uday Sinha (retired) constituted under the orders of the Bench in the matter of Sohan Roy [(2010 (2) PLJR 397]. Feeling aggrieved, the concerned writ petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, under its order dated 8th August 2011 made in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16798 of 2010 and other petitions, set aside the direction issued by the Bench and has remitted the Appeals for hearing and decision on merits.

2. The matter at issue is simple, very commonly found in the claims made by the employees of the State Government, that is that of regularization in service. However, this group of matters has a long chequered history. We do not need to delve into the facts in each writ petition. Though the dates, place etc. may be different, the facts are similar.

3. All the writ petitioners had joined the service of the State of Bihar under the orders made by the concerned Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer of a district. None of the writ petitioners was appointed by a proper legal recruitment process. The modus operandi was to issue a posting order posting the concerned writ petitioners in Class III or Class IV service in a Primary Health Centre within the jurisdiction of the Civil Surgeon. Most of the writ petitioners were appointed in Class III service as Basic Health Workers or clerks or in Class IV service. The Government of Bihar having realized the large scale illegalities committed in appointment by the concerned Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officers, all appointments made during 1980s were ordered to be scrutinized. The State Government having found that large number of appointments were made on the basis of the false or forged documents; without following due process of recruitment and mostly without the appointment orders, such appointments were cancelled and concerned incumbents were discharged from service. These orders of discharge came to be challenged before this Court in hundreds of writ petitions. This Court, by a common judgment and order in the matter of Sitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2003(4) PLJR 282], set aside the impugned orders of discharge from service solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. All writ petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service without the salary or remuneration for the interregnum period.

4. Since their reinstatement in service under the orders of the Court, the State Government initiated proceedings to terminate the service of such employees by issuing a show cause notice and calling upon each of them to establish legality of respective appointment. The writ petitioners failed to establish the legality of their appointment. Once again their service was terminated. The said orders of termination led to a large number of writ petitions (nearly a thousand) before this Court which eventually reached the Division Bench in letters patent appeals. As many as 819 letters patent appeals and the writ petitions were decided by the Bench [Coram:- Dr. J. N. Bhatt, C.J. and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, as he then was] [2006 (3) PLJR 386]. The Bench noticed that the writ petitioners were appointed in Class III or IV service and were serving as such for a long time. The writ petitioners had claimed the benefit of regularization in service in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matte