JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“That this is an application praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka vide Memo No. 2770 dated 14/10/93 and 13/10/93 respectively whereby the re-appointment of the petitioners pursuant to various judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Patna High Court has been cancelled in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and in violation of the Principle of natural justice and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to reinstate the service of the petitioners with back wages and pay him the arrears of salary and grant them other consequential relief for which the petitioners are entitled in accordance with law.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are altogether seven petitioners in the present case and along with others, they were appointed as daily wage workers as back as in the year 1989. 31 persons amongst them including the petitioners were regularized vide Memo dated 30.03.1989 as contained in Annexure-1 and 1/A. The petitioners were issued show-cause notice on 10.09.1993 and were terminated from services on 13/14.10.1993.

5. The order of termination was challenged before Hon’ble Patna High Court by 20 persons out of 31 and amongst the 20 persons, the present petitioner nos. 1, 5 and 6 were also party in the writ petition which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 13043 of 1993. He submits that this fact is apparent from the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that the said three persons were also party in the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel further submits that eventually the matter travelled upto Hon’ble Apex Court and vide order dated 20.11.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8336 of 1997(Arun Kumar Rout and others), direction was issued to the State to fill up vacancy, inter alia, giving 50% weightage to the persons who were petitioners in S.L.P.

6. In compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, order dated 12.05.1998 was passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure-4, which included the three persons i.e. petitioner no.1, 5 and 6. Altogether 12 persons were absorbed by the respondents vide Annexure-5 dated 08.06.1999.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sunita Kumari and Others filed another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. During the course of arguments and upon query by this court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the present petitioners were party in the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. However, the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998 was disposed of on 08.02.2000 with a finding that the petitioners of the said case were similar to the ones who were before Hon’ble Apex Court and consequently, a direction as contained in Annexure-6 was issued to the respondents of the said writ petition to give the same preference to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. The learned counsel submits that in compliance of order dated 08.02.2000 passed in the case of Sunita Kumari and Others (Supra), in which the petitioners were not party, the State of Jharkhand took a decision that remaining 11 persons will be appointed in similar manner as that of Arun Kumar Rout and others.

8. The learned counsel further submits that thereafter another order dated 22.08.2003 was passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 343 of 1995 (P) and L.P.A. No. 56 of 1997(P). These two L.P.As. were arising from the common order dated 14.03.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 12368 and 12203 of 1993 wherein following directions were issued :-

“But before parting with this order, I would like to o