Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners for regularisation of their services/regular appointment. 2. The admitted facts show that the petitioners were appointed against non- teaching Class-IV posts of C.M. College, Darbhanga by the Principal of the College in between 13th June, 1983 and 12th March, 1986. The State of Bihar issued one Resolution on 10th May, 1991 and decided to regularise the services of non-teaching employees appointed against the posts under the staffing pattern prior to 10th May, 1986 and to terminate the services of those appointed after 10th May, 1986. All the petitioners having appointed prior to 10th May, 1986, moved this court along with others in C.W.J.C. No. 4691 of 1993 for regularisation of services which was heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 7391 of 1992 and both the cases were dismissed by common order and judgment of this Court dated 23rd March, 1994. 3. At that stage, the petitioners moved before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. and the Apex Court on hearing the parties, allowed the S.L.P.; set aside the judgment of this Court, and remitted the case for hearing. 4. Subsequently, the case (C.W.J.C. No. 4691 of 1993) when taken up, the writ petition was pressed on behalf of five of the petitioners of the said case and the said writ petition in respect of these petitioners was not pressed. 5. With regard to the petitioners who pressed C.W.J.C. No. 4691 of 1993, decision was given in their favour on 30th December, 1998 for regularisation of their services, in pursuance of which they have now been regularised. 6. It appears that the question of regularisation of services of non-teaching Class-Ill and Class-IV employees, including the petitioners was taken up by the Respondents, when the case was pending before this Court/Supreme Court. The Principal, C.M. College, Darbhanga vide letter dated 10th March, 1997 forwarded the list wherein the names of petitioners are reflected. The Principal vide recent letter dated 7th January, 1999 also made a request to the Registrar of the University to regularise the services of the petitioners, but no step having taken, the present writ petition has been preferred. 7. The main objection made on behalf of the Respondents is that the 2nd writ petition is not maintainable, earlier writ petition preferred by petitioners having not pressed. The plea of res judicata pleaded by the counsel for the Respondents. 8. 7. The main objection made on behalf of the Respondents is that the 2nd writ petition is not maintainable, earlier writ petition preferred by petitioners having not pressed. The plea of res judicata pleaded by the counsel for the Respondents. 8. Similar case fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Binod Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 1616 of 1999), disposed of on 18th May, 2000. In the said case, the Court taking into consideration the fact that there was a subsequent cause of action, persons junior to said petitioner/similarly situated having regularised, directed the same very University authorities to consider the case of said petitioner for regularisation of service/regular appointment. 9. Following the decision in the case of Binod Jha (supra), there being subsequent cause of action taken place in January, 1999, I direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of their services/regular appointment in terms with decision and direction, as given in the case of Binod Jha (supra), 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.