Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : (i) The petitioners may be allowed to work on the post which they hold after regularisation of their services and appointments on their respective posts and places. (ii) The respondents may be directed to pay the salary to the petitioners who have worked and have been working on their respective post and place of appointment. (iii) The order of termination of services of the petitioners issued by the Special Secretary (respondent No.3) Vide Letter No.11 A. G.280/82, 3465, Patna, dated 8th March, 1983 of cancelled. (iv) The order of Director of Agriculature issued vide office Order No.1/a. g. /2/590, Krishi, Patna, dated 8th September, 1982 staying the operation of the order of the Establishment Committee be declared as infructuous. (v) Any other relief or reliefs consequential to the petitioners appointment be granted. (vi) The observation of the Administrative Tribunal given in paras 10 to 14 of the order, dated 10-8-1984 contained in Annexure-8 may be declared as without jurisdiction. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. A large number of persons had been working in the district of Bhojpur and Rohtas in grade III and IV posts in the Agriculture Department for a period of more than ten years. In view of the vacancies existing in the said department in the posts of Assistant and others, the persons working on daily wages having a requisite qualification filed their representations before the State Government for regularisation of their services and after due consideration of the aforementioned representations the State Government adopted a policy decision to regularise the services of such employees. Pursuant thereto an Establishment Committee was constituted and the said Establishment Committee made a recommendation on 27-8-1982 wherein it was recommended that the services of such persons including the petitioners be regularised. The aforementioned report of the establishment Committee is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. Pursuant to the aforementioned recommendation the competent authority appointed the petitioners in their respective posts. The aforementioned offers of appointment are contained in Annexure-3 series. 4. The aforementioned report of the establishment Committee is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. Pursuant to the aforementioned recommendation the competent authority appointed the petitioners in their respective posts. The aforementioned offers of appointment are contained in Annexure-3 series. 4. The petitioners have asserted that amongst the daily wages earners, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were appointed on the post of Assistants on 4-8-1982 by the respondent No.7 on ad-hoc basis for six mouths or till their regular appointments is made whichever is earlier. The said letter, dated 4-8-1982 is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application Pursuant to be recommendations of the aforementioned Establishment Committee the services of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 was regularised and they were also allowed to continue to their respective posts. 5. The petitioners have further asserted that the petitioner Nos.3 to 8 pursuant to the offers of appointment as contained in Annexure-3 series joined their respective posts on 2-9-1984. 6. Hewever, by an order, dated 8-9-1982 the respondent No.5 stayed the operation of the recommendations of the Establishment Committee although the same, as stated herein- before, had already been acted upon. Thereafter the services of the petitioners were terminated by an order, dated 8-3-1983 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. 7. The petitioners being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction being C. W. J. C. No.2359 of 1983. In the said writ petition the petitioners were directed to move the administrative Tribunal first. The petitioners thereafter filed an application before the Administrative Tribunal and it was held by the said Tribunal that the petitioners were not Government servant. In the aforementioned circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ application. 8. In the instant case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state of Bihar. In the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that the appointments of the employees in Class III and IV posts were made irregular. The irregularities which are alleged to have been committed in regularising the services of the petitioners was that the names of the candidates were not notified by the employment exchange and the vacancies of such posts were not advertised. It has further been alleged that four persons namely, M/s Md. Tahir Khan, Ram prasad Rai, Ram Awadhesh Chaudhary and Laxman Singh, who were seniors to the petitioners, were not appointed. 9. It has further been alleged that four persons namely, M/s Md. Tahir Khan, Ram prasad Rai, Ram Awadhesh Chaudhary and Laxman Singh, who were seniors to the petitioners, were not appointed. 9. In reply to the aforementioned counter-affidavit the petitioners have stated that the aforementioned persons namely, Md. Tahir Khan and Ram Prasad rai, etc. , had also been appointed by the orders, dated 29-7-1982 and 29-6-1982. The said orders are contained in Annexures-II and HI appended to the aforementioned reply. 10. It is now well known in view of the various decisions of the supreme Court that the policy decision of the State to regularise the services of its casual employees should be enforced. In certain decisions the Supreme Court has also directed the authorities concerned to regularies the services of such persons in terms of the directive principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution of india. Reference in this connection may be made to K. V. Vora and others V/s. State of Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2342 and Dhirendra chamoli and another V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 (1) SCC 637 . 11. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the State of Bihar was bound to give effect to its own policy decision for regularisation of the services of its employees. 12. So far as the contention of the respondents to the effect that the names of the candidates were not obtained from the Employment Exchange is concerned, it may be mentioned that the said requirement of law is not necessary to be complied With in a case where the persons who had been working on casual or ad-hoc basis for such a long time. It may further be mentioned that even if there had been any violation in that regard the appointment regularisations of such persons do not become illegal thereby. 13. As mentioned hereinbefore, the second contention raised on behalf of the respondents have also no substance in view of the fact that the same is based on error of record. From the reply to the counter-affidavit it appears that the persons named therein have also been subsequently absorbed. It is just possible that the aforementioned persons were not available at the time when the petirioners were appointed by reason of Annexure-3 series. 14. From the reply to the counter-affidavit it appears that the persons named therein have also been subsequently absorbed. It is just possible that the aforementioned persons were not available at the time when the petirioners were appointed by reason of Annexure-3 series. 14. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure 7 is hereby quashed but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed.