JUDGMENT S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioners originally filed the writ petition for direction on the respondents to appoint them to the post of clerk. When the present writ petition was earlier taken up by this Court on 16th January, 1997, this Court rejected the prayer of the petitioners for such appointment. However, when it was brought to the notice of this Court that certain other persons were also continuing in the service in an illegal manner, they were ordered to be impleaded as party respondent nos. 7 to 9 to the present writ petition and the following order was passed. "The petitioners seek direction for appointment to the post of Clerk on the ground that similarly situate persons have been appointed/retained. The petitioners were initially appointed as Aichchik Karyakarta (voluntary workers) on honorarium of Rs. 50/per month on 20.4.87. They were later engaged on daily wages basis on 15.12.90 and in course of time appointed in regular scale admissible to Class III post. After their services were terminated, they came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10464 of 1993. By order as contained in Annexure-13 their claim was rejected on 22.9.94. As the grievance to the effect that similarly situate persons, who like the petitioners had been initially engaged as Voluntary workers, later engaged on daily wages basis and appointed in the regular scale, have been retained on the post, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, was directed to look into the matter and pass appropriate order. In the above facts it is apparent that so far as the relief for appointment against class III post is concerned, the same having been rejected in the previous writ petition, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the claim and to that extent the writ petition is not maintainable. It, however, appears that pursuant to the latter part of the order aforesaid the Civil Surgeon terminated the appointments of certain persons on 5.5.95 vide Annexure-14. Later, however, orders were issued on 2.8.95 vide Annexure-17 to retain their services Another order to which attention of the Court was drawn is one contained in Annexure-19. As regards the latter order, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the same has not been implemented. Later, however, orders were issued on 2.8.95 vide Annexure-17 to retain their services Another order to which attention of the Court was drawn is one contained in Annexure-19. As regards the latter order, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the same has not been implemented. So far as the three person mentioned in Annexure-17 are concerned, a bald stand has been taken in the counter affidavit to the effect that their cases were not similar to those of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Annexure-21 series and submitted that the stand of the respondents is not correct. Baldeo Prasad, Umesh Prasad Singh and Umesh Narayan Sahi were also, like the petitioners, initially engaged as voluntary workers and in course of time appointed in the regular scale. The submission to this extent appears to be well founded. It, however, appears that the said three persons have not been impleaded in this case as party-respondents. Counsel for the petitioners stated that he may be allowed to add them as parties. Permission is granted. Baldeo Prasad, Umesh Prasad Singh and Umesh Narayan Sahi are allowed to be added as respondent nos. 7 to 9. As indicated hereinabove, it is not possible to issue direction for appointment of the petitioners. However, prima facie, the appointment/continuance of Baldeo Prasad, Umesh Prasad Singh and Umesh Narayan Sahi appears to be in conflict with the direction of this Court. It also amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. I would, accordingly, direct that till further orders, the newly added respondents i.e. respondent nos. 7 to 9 shall not be allowed to function on the post and no salary/allowance shall be paid to them. In the meantime, issue notice to the newly added respondents to show cause why their appointments be not cancelled. Talbana etc. must be filed within one week, failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench". 2. The respondent nos. 7 to 9 as well as the other respondents State of Bihar and its authorities appeared and filed counter affidavit. Initially, the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 filed one counter affidavit and made statement that they were appointed against Class III post after following the procedure of appointment. 2. The respondent nos. 7 to 9 as well as the other respondents State of Bihar and its authorities appeared and filed counter affidavit. Initially, the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 filed one counter affidavit and made statement that they were appointed against Class III post after following the procedure of appointment. However, the aforesaid statement having been controverted by the petitioners, the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit enclosing therein the relevant documents to show that they were appointed after following the procedure of appointment, including advertisement, interview, selection through a Selection Committee after preparation of a merit list. 3. In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Incharge, Civil Surgeon, Madhubani (respondent no.3), it is stated that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 were appointed illegally without following the procedure of appointment and so after giving proper notice to them, their services have already been terminated by one order no.289 dated 9th February, 1998. 4. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 to 9, they have stated that in pursuance of an advertisement (Annexure-A) published in the newspaper 'Times of India' on 14th September, 1989, the petitioners applied for appointment against one or other Class III posts. Thereafter, they were called for interview through notice published in the Notice Board on 30th December, 1989 whereinafter they were appointed. 5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 further submitted that as the legality of appointment of the respondents 7 to 9 was pending consideration before this Court, the respondents should not have come out with the order of termination dated 9th February, 1998 and should have awaited the decision. 6. From the pleading made by the respondent nos. 7 to 9, I find that though they are in position to show that an advertisement was published in the newspaper, but they have failed to show that other procedure for appointment to the posts concerned were followed in their cases. Admittedly, no interview letter was issued to them. Though an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 14th September, 1989 calling for application from eligible candidates for appointment against different Class III posts, irrespective of their place of residence, without any notice to candidate of other places, a purported selection took place. Admittedly, no interview letter was issued to them. Though an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 14th September, 1989 calling for application from eligible candidates for appointment against different Class III posts, irrespective of their place of residence, without any notice to candidate of other places, a purported selection took place. This, according to me, is not permissible being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. This apart, there is nothing on the record to suggest that some sort of selected list was prepared by the Selection Committee and a merit list was prepared before the appointment of the petitioners. 8. However, as the appointments of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 have already been cancelled by one order dated 9th February, 1998, no further order is required to be passed in this case with respect to them, such order being legal. 9. The other grievance of the petitioner, as was recorded by this Court by its earlier order dated 16th January, 1997, was that a number of persons, whose services were terminated on 5th September, 1995 being illegal, they were reinstated subsequently on 2nd August, 1995.List of 138 such persons was enclosed by the petitioners with the writ petition. 10. In the supplementary counter affidavit and show cause filed in the analogous contempt petition, the present Civil Surgeon has stated that after the order of termination dated 10th July, 1995, the then Civil Surgeon, Dr. Irkush Topno issued various orders of reinstatement. However, those orders of re-instatement were not given effect in many of the cases. Out of total 138 persons, whose services were terminated, 79 persons were allowed to be re-instated. But recently, when the present Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer came to know of the same, issued show cause notice to each of the 79 such illegal appointees and after hearing them services of 40 persons have already been terminated by another order no. 291 dated 10.2.1998. It is stated that with regard to rest of the 39 persons, no final order has been issued as they have intimated that their cases are pending before this Court. It is further stated that the appointment of another Shri Anirudh Prasad having been found illegal, his service has also been terminated by one order dated 9.2.1998, after giving notice to him. 11. It is further stated that the appointment of another Shri Anirudh Prasad having been found illegal, his service has also been terminated by one order dated 9.2.1998, after giving notice to him. 11. In view of subsequent development as taken place, as recorded above, no further order is required to be passed in the present case. However, this order will not stand in the way of the petitioners and/or the contesting respondents in their future appointment. If anyone or other petitioner or contesting respondent applies for appointment in future, the respondents will consider their cases, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if one or other petitioner or contesting respondent become over age in the meantime, they will consider their cases for relaxation of age. It is expected that the vacant post will be filled up by the respondents, in accordance with law, on an early date preferably within a period of six months. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed and the proceeding for contempt initiated against the contemner is dropped. The Contempt Petition, thus, stands disposed of.