Jyoti Saran, J. – It is feeling aggrieved by a common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions were dismissed that the writ petitioners in the respective writ petitions are before this Court in this batch of intra Court appeals. While LPA No.1631 of 2010 arises from the judgment and order passed in CWJC No.2420 of 1997, LPA No.1636 of 2010 arises from the judgment and order passed in CWJC No.2419 of 1997 and LPA No.438 of 2011 arises from the judgment and order passed in CWJC No.1204 of 2002.

2. For the sake of convenience we would be referring the pleadings made in LPA No.1631 of 2010 unless clarified with specific reference to the other two appeals.

3. The appellant-writ petitioners in the batch of appeals were appointed on Class III post of Clerk by a selection committee chaired by one Ram Yatan Paswan, the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya following the selection process initiated in the year 1994. These appointments were suspected on the procedure followed as well as the jurisdiction of the committee to make such appointment and which led to a decision dated 31.12.1996, whereby it was resolved to terminate the services of all the employees appointed by Ram Yatan Paswan, the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. It is following such decision that the salary of the employees were kept in abeyance by an order passed on 14.02.1997 and it is feeling aggrieved by such action that these appellants as writ petitioners came before this Court in separate writ petitions as discussed above, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide common judgment and order dated 13.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved that the present batch of appeals were filed by the writ petitioners and which were heard analogous and allowed in part by a coordinate Bench vide judgment and order passed on 03.02.2012, whereby the claim of the appellant-writ petitioners in the three appeals was upheld except appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 in LPA No.1636 of 2010, namely, Surendra Kumar, Suresh Kumar Pradeep and Mohan Paswan respectively, inter alia, on grounds that their relatives were the members of the Divisional Establishment Committee. Their services rendered was, however, directed for being counted for the purpose of retiral benefits and since no termination order had been issued by the respondents as yet that all these appellant-writ petitioners were held to be in service.

4. It is feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dated 03.02.2012 in the batch of appeals that the State moved the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions which on being allowed were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.5608, 5610 and 5607 of 2015. The Civil appeals were allowed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order passed on 26.07.2018 and since the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Division Bench had passed the judgment without noticing the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petitions that the matter was remitted and the appeals were restored to its file for fresh hearing and disposal.

5. The bare essential facts have already been noted by us hereinabove and in the nature of the order that we propose to pass we would not be required to delve further into the same.

6. Suffice it to say that while there are no records to support that any lawful procedure was followed by the committee to make such appointments, it remains undisputed that no advertisement was issued in this regard except that some requisition had been made by the Committee through the local Employment Exchange for making such appointments. The discussions present in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does note that while the process of selection was started on 22.07.1994 by issuance of interview letters to the writ petitioners fixing the date of interview on 28.07.1994, there was nothing on the record of the proceeding which would confirm whether t