Judgment A. N. Trivedi and j. JJ. 1. The petitioners who were working as Laboratory Technicians are aggrieved by the order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) passed by the commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health, medical Education and Family Welfare department, Government of Bihar, respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993) being aggrieved by the orders dated 13-5-1993, 14-5-1993, 18-5-1993, 26-5-1993 and 31-5-1993 (Annexure-3 series) by which their services had been terminated. C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993 along with other analogous cases were decided by a Division Bench of this court by the judgment dated 6-5-1993 (Annexure-19) and the following directions were issued to the Respondents:- "the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993 are said to have been appointed to the post of Laboratory Technicians. Allegedly the petitioners were trained in different Government institutions. According to the petitioners they were selected for medical Laboratory training after advertisement and in the training they came out successful whereupon they were appointed as laboratory technicians. Such advertisements are said to have been issued in the year 1981 as also in the year 1983. However, it is stated that 1981 advertisement at present is not available to the petitioners but advertisement dated 20-6-1983 has been annexed with the writ application and has been marked as Annexure-4 thereto. It has further been alleged that an advertisement had been issued for appointment to 277 posts on 16-12-1989 but as the petitioners had already been working they did not apply pursuant thereof. It is stated that 144 eligible persons were only appointed by a common order dated 8-3-1991 and the rest posts are still lying vacant. In this case no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State controverting the submission made by the said writ application. In this view of the matter in our opinion, the case of the petitioners of the aforementioned writ application and similar other cases also deserves reconsideration. " 3. The impugned order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) has been passed by the Respondent No.2 in purported compliance of the direction of this court reproduced hereinabove. 4. In this view of the matter in our opinion, the case of the petitioners of the aforementioned writ application and similar other cases also deserves reconsideration. " 3. The impugned order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) has been passed by the Respondent No.2 in purported compliance of the direction of this court reproduced hereinabove. 4. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that in response to the advertisement issued in the year 1982-83 by the Director, public Health Institution, Patna, calling for applications from eligible candidates for admission to Laboratory Technician Training course, the petitioners made applications and were admitted in the Training courses and had successfully completed their training and certificates were issued to them copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-6 series. Along with Supplementary Affidavit dated 13-11-1996 the petitioners have annexed the results of the training published by the Director, Public Health Institution, respondent No.7, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-25 and annexure-26 series are the copies of the gazette Notification in which the results of the petitioners were published. According to the petitioners, as was the practice prevalent in those days, they submitted applications for being considered for appointment as laboratory Technicians and were so appointed between the years 1983 and 1985. Copies of the appointment letters of the petitioners have been annexed as annexure-29 series with the Supplementary Affidavit dated 13-11-1996. Appointment letters were issued by Dr. A. A Mullick, the then deputy Director, Health Services (T. B. ). In course of times it came to the notice of the State government that large numbers of appointment have been illegally made by dr. Mullick and after enquiry the services of all such persons including the petitioners were terminated which led to the filing of the writ petitions in this court which were decided by the judgment and order dated 6-5-1993 (Annexure-19 ). But is noticed above since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, therefore, the State government was directed to re-consider the cases of the petitioners. 5. But is noticed above since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, therefore, the State government was directed to re-consider the cases of the petitioners. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it has been stated that the appointing authority for the post of Laboratory Technicians is the Director-in-Chief and that merely because the petitioners were trained laboratory Technicians they could not have been appointed as Laboratory technicians without any advertisement or vacancy or requisition from the employment Exchange and their cases have to be considered by the Selection committee in accordance with the recruitment rules as directed by the state Government. It has been stated that the appointments were made without following the procedure prescribed for recruitment. It has been further explained that the procedure for appointment of AN. Ms. is not similar to that of Laboratory Technicians as in the case of AN. Ms. candidates selected for appointments are sent for admission and on successful completion of training, they are accordingly appointed. It has been further stated that the training certificates do not appear to be genuine. It has been asserted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993 the Competent authority has considered the case of the petitioners and since the earlier appointment of the petitioner was neither made by the Competent Authority nor in accordance with prescribed procedure and since the petitioners have not applied for appointment in accordance with 1989 advertisement their case was not found fit and the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24-3-1995. 6. Sri Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as respondent No.2 had observed in the impugned order that since the petitioners had not responded to the advertisement published in the year 1989 for appointment to the posts of laboratory Technicians, therefore, the applications which they have made before the respondents No.2 could not be entertained and their claim was not justified. Learned Counsel submitted that Respondent No.2 completely misdirected himself and did not correctly appreciate the direction of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993. Learned Counsel submitted that Respondent No.2 completely misdirected himself and did not correctly appreciate the direction of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993. Learned counsel submitted that it was for the respondent No.2 to have ascertained whether the petitioners had been duly trained and their appointments had been made in accordance with law and if it was so found, Respondent No.2 ought to have issued orders for reinstatement of the petitioners. Learned Counsel submitted that since the orders of this court had not been complied, the impugned order has to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement. He, however, fairly conceded that in case the orders of reinstatement are issued the petitioners shall forego their claim for arrears of salary for the period they remained out of employment. 7. Sri A. N. Singh, learned S. C.8. , submitted on behalf of the State that in course of some enquiries it was revealed that the certificates and registers regarding the training of the petitioners as laboratory Technicians were not available and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are duly trained laboratory Technicians. Learned Standing Counsel, however, could not justify the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 24-3-1985 and submitted that the respondents are prepared to reconsider the cases afresh in the light of the directions issued by this Court in c. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993. 8. Having considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and the material on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained but at this stage no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioners for their reinstatement as admittedly the directions of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993 has not been complied by respondent No.2. 9. Respondent No.2 in the impugned order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) observed that in the year 1989 an advertisement was published inviting application from eligible candidates for being considered for appointment on 277 posts of Laboratory Technicians and suitable candidates were appointed on the basis of interview and the recommendations of the Screening committee and the matter came to an end. 9. Respondent No.2 in the impugned order dated 24-3-1995 (Annexure-1) observed that in the year 1989 an advertisement was published inviting application from eligible candidates for being considered for appointment on 277 posts of Laboratory Technicians and suitable candidates were appointed on the basis of interview and the recommendations of the Screening committee and the matter came to an end. It was further observed that since the petitioners did not make any application in response to the said advertisement the application now made by the petitioners for being appointed as laboratory Technicians cannot be entertained as no advertisement had been published thereafter and therefore they had no claim for appointment as laboratory Technicians. 10. It appears that after the order had been passed in C. W. J. C. No.5979 of 1993, the petitioners submitted their applications for reinstatement and the respondent No.2 without examining as to whether the petitioner had been duly trained as Laboratory Technicians and had been validly appointed by the competent authority passed the impugned order. This court in C. W. J. C. No.6979 of 1993 had directed that the cases of the petitioners be reconsidered afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment but that has not been done. The explanation given in the counter-affidavit does not find mention in the impugned order and the reasons given to justify the impugned order in the Counter-Affidavit cannot be taken note of. 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 24-5-1995 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of bihar, respondent No.2 is directed to enquire whether the petitioners had been appointed in accordance with the rules and whether the Deputy Director, health Services (T. B.) who had issued the appointment letters was the Appointing Authority at the relevant time and in case it is found that there is no infirmity in the orders of appointment of the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall issue appropriate directions to the appointing authority to reinstate the petitioners with the condition that the petitioners shall not be entitled to salary for the period during which they remained out of employment after their termination of services and prior to reinstatement but the said period shall not be treated as break in service. The respondent No.2 shall, on receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall be filed by the petitioner along with an application giving their postal address, issues notice to the petitioners to appear before him on a date fixed and on which date the petitioners shall file all relevant documents to establish their claim that they had been validly appointed. It is, however, clarified that insofar as the petitioners training qualifications are concerned, no infirmity has been found as the results have been duly published in the official gazette and the training certificates have been annexed. Respondent No.2 shall therefore, treat the petitioners as duly trained Laboratory Technicians. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No.2 within two months from the date certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioners as indicated above. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and each petitioners is entitled to cost of rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) which shall be paid within two months from today. Petition Allowed