Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahato, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

2. All these cases involve similar question and accordingly they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. In W.P.(S) Nos. 5386, 5387, 5388, 6849 and 6322 of 2004, Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that separate Court fees for all the petitioners may be exempted as they have challenged the common decision of the District Establishment Committee dated 31.8.2004. He relied on the case of 1998 (2) PLJR 765 (Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.). Learned Advocate General submitted that he has got no objection if the Court fees are exempted.

In the circumstances, payment of separate sets of Court fees for all the petitioners is exempted.

4. Now merits. Though the petitioners have raised several contentions in their pleadings, Mr. R.B. Mahto confined his attack to Annexure-9, on the ground that the letters dated 3.12.1980 and 25.4.1997 (Annexures-B and B/1) were in force when the petitioners applied against the advertisement published on 21.11.2001 (Annexure-1 for preparation of pane) I and therefore, the decision dated 31.8.2004 (Annexure-9) issued during this process to the extent, it provides for holding written examination is illegal, arbitrary and bad.

5. Mr. R.B. Mahato submitted that some of the petitioners filed writ petitions in the year 1999 complaining that although they were working on daily wages for the last 10/12 years, yet their names were not being recommended for empanelment in the district panel; and that they should be regularized in Class IV post. The said writ petitions were disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, and he was directed to consider their claims by passing reasoned order in accordance with law. It was observed that if the petitioners have been continuously working for 10/12 years of daily wages, then the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the matter sympathetically regarding age bar and relaxation in age so far as the petitioners were concerned. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 5.8.2002, 12.9.2002 and 30.9.2002.

6. Learned Advocate General referred to the records of the said cases and submitted that the writ petitions were disposed of on the first date of hearing without counter affidavit. The petitioners suppressed the fact that on 21.11.2001, i.e. during the pendency of the said writ petitions, a notice was published in the newspaper on 21.11.2001 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for preparation of panel for appointment of Class IV employees in Deoghar District.

7. Mr. R.B. Mahto then submitted that by letter dated 5th November, 2003 (Annexure-3), the Deputy Commissioner sought clarification from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, wrote inter alia as follows :

As per the letters issued from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter No. 16441 dated 3.12.1980 and letter No. 3577 dated 25.4.1997, guide lines were issued regarding the basis and process for appointment on Class IV posts, which letters were being followed from time to time. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.11.2001, 11341 applications have been received. About 65 daily wagers filed writ petitions in this Court and due to non-consideration of their cases, several contempt petitions were filed. After receiving the resolution No. 5680 dated 8.10.2003 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the process of publication of panel and of appointment has been stayed. In these circumstances, guidelines were sought for from the Government of Jharkhand. He furthe