Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. These two writ applications have been heard analogous and this judgment will govern both of them. 2. Earlier also these writ applications had come up for decision before a Bench presided over by B.N. Agrawal, J. (as he then was) and by an order dated 21st December, 1998 the aforesaid Bench had allowed the two writ applications and had quashed the Annexures under challenge. Against this judgment and order passed by this Court the respondents went to Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4477-4478/1999. Before the Hon ble Supreme Court appellant No. 1 Binod Kumar Gupta was respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91 and respondent No. 1, Ram Ashray Mahto was petitioner No. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91. The Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the aforesaid Bench of this Court and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what was observed in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court. This is how these two writ applications again came up before this Bench for decision. 3. While disposing of the Civil Appeal Nos. 4477-4478/1999 the Hon ble Supreme Court in the judgment has observed as follows: On behalf of the appellants it is contended that even de-hors the said Rules their appointments are valid while the contention of the contesting respondents is that even without reference to the said Rules appointments of appellants are invalid and that there is no challenge to the said Rules in the petitions. In the circumstances, the. High Court ought to have examined the contentions put-forth in the petitions on the respective stands taken by the appellants/respondents in the course of the proceedings before it. We find force in the contentions made on behalf of appellants and contesting respondents that the High Court has not examined their contentions at all. Therefore, we set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what we have stated above...... Before making the aforesaid observations the Hon ble Supreme Court had referred to Rules 73 to 77 of the Civil Court Rules which were held to be invalid by this Court in the case of Md. Saghir and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. Before making the aforesaid observations the Hon ble Supreme Court had referred to Rules 73 to 77 of the Civil Court Rules which were held to be invalid by this Court in the case of Md. Saghir and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1994(2) PUR 427 and Md. Sohrab and Ors. V/s. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 522 of 1991, disposed of on 12th July, 1995 according to which Rules 73 to 77 of the Civil Court Rules were held to be invalid and it was on this ground along that this Court had passed the impugned judgment against which the aforesaid appeal was filed before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 4. This writ application is directed against Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90 issued by Shri A. P. Srivastava, District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, as contained in Annexures 1 and 1/A appointing respondent Nos. 5 to 32 as IVth grade employees in the Judgeship of Sitamarhi. From the facts alleged it would appear that in the month of April/May, 1986 there were several vacancies of IVth grade employees in the Judgeship of Sitamarhi. It appears that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1253 of 1991 filed their applications before the District Judge, Sitamarhi for the aforesaid posto. A selection committee was constituted consisting of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as one Jagdish Jha, A.D.J. (now deceased). Shri A.P. Srivastava (respondent No. 2) without calling for any interview of the candidates appointed respondent Nos. 5. to 32 in an arbitrary manner without consulting the members of the selection committee. Respondent Nos. 5 to 32 have never applied for the aforesaid post as per the notice hung on the notice board of the judgeship. No fresh advertisement in the news-paper inviting application for the aforesaid posts was issued at all by respondent No. 2. The petitioners have contended that under the aforesaid circumstances the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 32 was wholly illegal, mala fide and arbitrary as the same was done without any interview and any consultation of the members of the selection committee and accordingly Annexures 1 and 1/A are fit to be quashed. 5. The petitioners have contended that under the aforesaid circumstances the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 32 was wholly illegal, mala fide and arbitrary as the same was done without any interview and any consultation of the members of the selection committee and accordingly Annexures 1 and 1/A are fit to be quashed. 5. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it has been stated that Shri Rama Kant Singh, the then District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi had invited applications for the post of IVth grade employees of the Judgeship in the year 1986 and pursuant thereof the petitioners of this writ application and others had apployed for the post. After receiving the applications Shri Rama Kant Singh constituted a selection committee for the appointment of IVth grade employees in the judgeship consisting of Shri B.K. Jha, C.J.M., Shri B.K. Dube, 2nd A.D.J. and Shri R.D. Roy, 1st A.D.J. Shri Roy was, however, on leave as a result of which the interview fixed for 22-6-1986 was postponed. Before this committee could hold its meeting Shri Ramakant Singh, District Judge had retired on 31st July, 1996 and was succeeded by Shri J.P. Verma who prepared a panel of four only out of the candidates who had already applied, for future appointment as IVth grade employees. However, Shri Verma did not take up the appointment matter. On his transfer Shri A.P. Srivastava took over the charge of the District Judge of Sitamarhi on 8th June, 1989. Shri Srivastava did not make any fresh advertisement for the appointment of IVth grade employees in the Judgeship. He even did not put any advertisement on the notice board inviting applications for this appointment. Every thing was kept secret for the reasons best known to him. All on a sudden vide Office Order No. 52/90 dated 7-11-1990 and 57/90 dated 7-12-1990 he ordered for the appointment of 28 persons (respondent Nos. 5 to 32). It will be surprising to note that respondent Nos. 5 to 32 had never applied for the post of IVth grade employees in the Judgeship during the" period of Shri Rama Kant Singh, the then District Judge, Sitamarhi. Thereafter this post was never advertised and no opportunity was given to these respondents to apply for the same. 5 to 32). It will be surprising to note that respondent Nos. 5 to 32 had never applied for the post of IVth grade employees in the Judgeship during the" period of Shri Rama Kant Singh, the then District Judge, Sitamarhi. Thereafter this post was never advertised and no opportunity was given to these respondents to apply for the same. On verification the petitioners could learn that respondent No. 21, Nand Lal and respondent No. 29, Lai Babu Singh belonged to Village Kirtupur, P.S. Basdih, District - Balia (U.P.) to which village respondent No. 2, Shri A.P. Srivastava also belonged as will be evident from the voters list of this Village -(Annexure-3). Respondent No. 6, Muni Lai Uraon, happens to be the domestic servant of respondent No. 2 and has been favoured with this employment though he did not possess the necessary qualifications, Similarly respondent, No. 11 Mukati Lal Rajak who is connected to the Samadhi of respondent No. 2 and though he was aged about 45 years was appointed after managing forged certificate. The members of the appointment committee were never consulted before issuing two Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90 appointing respondent Nos. 5 to 32 as is evident from the fact that their signatures do not appear on these two orders. At the relevant time Shri A.P. Sharma, (respondent No. 4) was the Judge Incharge of administration/Nazarat. His nephew, namely, Rajan Kumar (respondent No. 10) and Arbind Kumar (respondent No. 27) were also included in the list of persons to be appointed. It is interesting to note that though respondent Nos. 21 and 29 have given their addresses of Dumka district and Saran district they actually belonged to Village of respondent No. 2, namely, Village-Kirtupur in the District of Balia (U.P.) The fact is that Shri Ramakant Singh, the then District Judge had issued advertisement in the year 1986 inviting applications for the post of IVth grade employees and those applications were still pending and out of which a panel of four names were prepared by the then District Judge, Shri J.P. Verma. This fact was completely ignored while issuing two notifications (Annexures 1 and 1/A) and thus the instructions issued by this Court as laid down in letter No. 10989-11023/87 (Annexure-4) prescribing the mode of the appointment of IVth grade employees was totally ignored. 6. It has further been contended that respondent Nos. This fact was completely ignored while issuing two notifications (Annexures 1 and 1/A) and thus the instructions issued by this Court as laid down in letter No. 10989-11023/87 (Annexure-4) prescribing the mode of the appointment of IVth grade employees was totally ignored. 6. It has further been contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 4 had deprived the petitioners of their fundamental rights by not considering their applications submitted already in pursuance of the advertisement issued by Shri Ramakant Singh in the year 1986. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, had never advertised the vacancies and had never invited the applications through any news-paper or by displaying in the notice board of the Civil Court or the Collectoriate for the appointment of IVth grade employees. Had there been any fresh advertisement by respondent No. 2 the petitioners would also have applied for the same. The Petitioners have now come to know from two Advocates of Sitamarhi Court that they had filed a complaint before Hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the 1991 against illegal appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 32 as class IVth employee. The Hon ble the Chief Justice was pleased to get the matter enquired into by then District Judge, Shri Raja Ram Singh who after making a through enquiry had reported that no advertisement was ever made by respondent No. 2 for preparing a list of candidates for the appointment of IVth grade employees in Sitamarhi Judgeship. C.W.J.C. No. 3691 of 1991. 7. Four persons are petitioners in this writ application. This is also directed against the Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90 issued by Shri A.P. Srivastava (respondent No. 2) the then District Judge of Sitamarhi by which he had appointed respondent Nos. 4 to 31 as IVth grade employees in the Judgeship of Sitamarhi as contained in Annexure-2 and 2/A. The petitioners have contended that they were working on master roll in this Judgeship for five years and as such their names were included in the panel to fill up future vacancies. Shri J.P. Verma, the then District Judge, Sitamarhi by his order No. 24/89 dated 7-6-1989 had included the names of these petitioners in the panel. Even before this Shri Ramakant Singh in the year 1986 had invited applications by suitable advertisement for appointment of Class IV employees in the Judgeship, in response to which the petitioners had also applied. Shri J.P. Verma, the then District Judge, Sitamarhi by his order No. 24/89 dated 7-6-1989 had included the names of these petitioners in the panel. Even before this Shri Ramakant Singh in the year 1986 had invited applications by suitable advertisement for appointment of Class IV employees in the Judgeship, in response to which the petitioners had also applied. After receiving of the applications Shri Rama Kant Singh, the then District Judge constituted a committee for appointment of Class IVth employees consisting of Shri B.K. Jha, C.J.M., Shri B.K. Dube, 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Shri R.D. Roy. However, Shri Roy was on leave as a result of which the meeting was postponed as will appear from the order No. 62/86 issued by Shri Ramakant Singh (Annexure-1). This meeting, however, could not be held before Shri Ramakant Singh retired on 31-7-1986. Even Shri J.P. Verma who succeeded him as District Judge did not hold any selection committee meeting but he only prepared a panel of four names consisting of the present petitioners. On his transfer Shri A. P. Srivastava, respondent No. 2, did not make any fresh advertisement for appointment to the post of Class IVth employees in the Judgeship. Even no notice was published on the notice board of the Judgeship or Collectoriate inviting applications for the post. The whole thing was kept completely secret and finally Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/ 90 were issued appointing respondent Nos. 4 to 31 to the post of Class IVth employees. It is important to mention here that respondent Nos. 4 to 31 had never applied for the post of Class IVth employees in the Judgeship in the period of Shri Ramakant Singh and thereafter this post was not advertised. On verification the petitioners could learn that respondent Nos. 10, 20 and 28 belonged to Village-Kirtupur, P.S. Basdih, District - Balia the Village to which respondent No. 2, Shri A.P. Srivastava also belonged as will appear from the voter lists (Annexure-3). Even the domestic servant of respondent No. 2 was appointed, the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 31 were never included in any panel of Class IVth employees for future appointment, and this fact has been wrongly stated in the Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90. Even the domestic servant of respondent No. 2 was appointed, the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 31 were never included in any panel of Class IVth employees for future appointment, and this fact has been wrongly stated in the Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90. The members of the committee for appointment were never consulted while making these appointment and their signatures do not appear on Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90. The appointments were made as per the list prepared by Shri Anirudh Prasad Sharma, Judge-lncharge, Najarat, Sitamarhi. The petitioners have come to learn that Rajan Kumar and Arbind Kumar are nephews of Shri Sharma and their names were also included by Shri A.P. Srivastava. So far as respondents Muktilal Rajak, Lal Babu Singh and Nand Lal are concerned they belonged to the Village of respondent No. 2. These petitioners were included in the panel for future appointment in a regular way by inviting applications by Shri Ramakant Singh, District Judge, Sitamarhi, However, respondent No. 2 without following letter No. 10989 and 11023/ 87 (Annexure-4) issued by the Hon ble Court had made these appointment illegally. On these ground amongst others it has been contended that the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-2 and 2/A appointing respondent Nos. 4 to 31 be quashed. 8. The petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit in which they have contended that they had filed representations before the District Judge, Sitamarhi against the Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90 and the copy of this representation was sent to the Hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court and also to the Inspecting Hon ble Judge, Mr. Justice Shashank Kumar Singh and Mr. Justice Ali Ahmad in the capacity of Administrative Judge. Respondent Nos. 4 to 31, however, were appointed on permanent post even when their names never figured in the panel, 9. Shri A.P. Srivastava, respondent No. 2, has filed a show-cause before this Court in which he has contended that there is no merit in the writ application for issuing a writ of certiorari. He has, however, admitted that four petitioners were initially appointed on daily wages basis from different dates vide different orders issued in the year 1983 and 1985. Shri A.P. Srivastava, respondent No. 2, has filed a show-cause before this Court in which he has contended that there is no merit in the writ application for issuing a writ of certiorari. He has, however, admitted that four petitioners were initially appointed on daily wages basis from different dates vide different orders issued in the year 1983 and 1985. He has contended that he joined as District Judge, Sitamarhi on 8-6-1989 and keeping in view of hardship caused to judgeship he wrote to the State Government to Sanction 12 posts in Class IVth cadre. When these petitioners insisted for their absorption as Class IVth employees respondent No. 2 constituted appointment committee with himself as Chairman and Shri Jagdish Jha and Shri Kamla Prasad two senior most A.D.Js. This appointment committee took a decision on 27-3-1990 that the services of the petitioners be regularised for three months in anticipation of sanction order from the Government. After expiry of three months the appointment committee again decided to extend the services of the petitioners for a further period of six months in anticipation of sanction. The appointment committee went on extending the period of services of these petitioners from time to time. Thereafter respondent No. 2 was transferred as Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and he handed over the charge on 19-3-1991 to Shri Kamla Prasad who was succeeded as District Judge by Shri Raja Ram Singh. 10. Since there was an acute shortage of hands respondent No. 2 was left with no alternative but to ask the Najir as well as the Judge Incharge Administration to prepare a list of candidate peons after complying the Rule 73 of Civil Court Rules Vol. I as also with two letters of this Court (Annexures R2/A and R2/B). He invited applications from candidates after displaying the advertisement on the notice board of the Civil Court. Pursuant to this notice 55 persons applied for the post of Class 1 Vth employees out of whom two lists of 14 persons each as contained in Annexures 2 and 2/A were prepared. These lists were placed before the appointment committee and were approved by the same as also by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Sitamarhi Judgeship who had directed that the appointment may be made as per the rules in this regard. After this the notifications were issued appointing 28 persons to the post. These lists were placed before the appointment committee and were approved by the same as also by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Sitamarhi Judgeship who had directed that the appointment may be made as per the rules in this regard. After this the notifications were issued appointing 28 persons to the post. These appointment were made in accordance with law and this respondent carried out the order and directions of two Hon ble Inspecting Judges and Hon ble High Court. 11. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that the four petitioners have not been effected by the impugned orders since they were already regularised as Class IVth employees and were getting their salary. As such have no cause of action to file this writ application. There is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and no petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. He has denied that respondents Mukati Lai Rajak, Nand Lai and Lai Babu Singh were his co-villagers. While making appointments necessary Rules of Civil Court Rules (Vol. I) as also directions issued by the High Court were followed. On these grounds amongst others he has prayed that this show-cause be accepted and the writ application be dismissed. 12. The petitioners have filed a reply to the show-cause filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. They have contended that respondent Nos. 4 to 31 were appointed by order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90 even when the services of these petitioner were not regularised. No notice inviting applications was ever displayed on the notice board of the Civil Court. It will be wrong to say that these petitioners are not affected persons. The sanctioned post were created to absorb these petitioners but they were not appointed on the sanctioned post. On the other hand respondent Nos. 4 to 31 were appointed against the sanctioned post ignoring the claim of these petitioners. No notice dated 15-6-1990 was ever published on the notice board. The petitioners have further contended that the show-cause filed by respondent No. 2 is also full of wrong statement and mistakes. 13. Respondent No. 2, Shri A.P. Srivastava, has filed a reply to the petition dated 29-10-1992 filed on behalf of the petitioners. He has contended that the statements made in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the reply are misconceived. Respondent Nos. 13. Respondent No. 2, Shri A.P. Srivastava, has filed a reply to the petition dated 29-10-1992 filed on behalf of the petitioners. He has contended that the statements made in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the reply are misconceived. Respondent Nos. 4 to 31 were appointed against permanent vacancies in accordance with the provisions as contained in Rule 73 of the Civil Court Rules (Vol. I). It will be wrong to say that the no notice was displayed on the notice board inviting applications for Class IVth post. It will also be wrong to say that the appointment committee did not express any opinion with respect to the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 31. 14. A Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 who at the relevant time was Judge Incharge Administration/Nazarat. He has also supported the statements made by respondent No. 2 in his show-cause petition. According to him a panel of names was prepared as per the impugned orders on account of the great scarcity of the peons in the Court. He has submitted that the directions of the Hon ble High Court as also the Rules framed as per the Civil Court Rules (Vol. I) were strictly followed. 15. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 31. They have contended that they were appointed on vacant post of Class IVth employees on the temporary basis in the Judgeship of Sitamarhi in the year 1990. The appointments were made strictly in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed by the Hon ble High Court, Patna. There was an advertisement on the notice board and a panel of candidates for Class IVth employees was prepared from amongst legible applicants and the procedure prescribed under Rule 73 of the Civil Court Rules was followed. It is important to mention in this connection that in the year 1992 the Hon ble Patna High Court framed Rules called as Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1992 which came into force on 3-10-1992. The mode of recruitment of Class IV employees under this Rule is different from the previous patterns. It is important to mention in this connection that in the year 1992 the Hon ble Patna High Court framed Rules called as Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1992 which came into force on 3-10-1992. The mode of recruitment of Class IV employees under this Rule is different from the previous patterns. If appointments made prior to 3-10-1992 were quashed on the ground that Rule 73 of Civil Court Rules is ultra vires the services of thousand of Class IV employees in different Judgeship appointed prior to 3-10-1992 will bejeoparadised. As per the High Court letter No. 17825-56 dated 11-12-1984, it was not necessary to advertise the vacancies of the Civil Court in the State level newspapers and it will be sufficient if the same are advertised on the notice board. As per Annexure-E dated 17-8-1988 the High Court vide letter No. 2125-59/ P.F. IV-134-87 directed the District Judges to maintain a register of candidates for filling up leave and permanent vacancies as per Rule 73 of the Civil Court Rules. There was acute shortage of Class IV employees in Sitamarhi Judgeship as a result of which the Najir has drawn the attention of the Judge Incharge, Nazarat to this fact by writing a letter. The Judge Incharge, Nazarat in his turn wrote a letter to this effect to the District Judge who also informed the Hon ble Inspecting Judge and the Hon ble High Court about this situation. The appointments were made after following the necessary guidelines and instruction of the Hon ble High Court in this regard, and after ascertaining the number of vacancies pending in the Judgeship. These respondents have also denied various other statements made in the writ application and it was their contention that they have been validly appointed against the permanent post after following all the requirements of law. On these grounds they have contended that writ application be dismissed. 16. The parties have been heard at length on the various questions of law and fact raised in these two writ applications which relate to appointment of Class IV employees in subordinate Civil Court in the State. This matter had come up for decision before a Bench of this Court presided over by B.N. agrawal, J. (as he then was). 16. The parties have been heard at length on the various questions of law and fact raised in these two writ applications which relate to appointment of Class IV employees in subordinate Civil Court in the State. This matter had come up for decision before a Bench of this Court presided over by B.N. agrawal, J. (as he then was). The Bench had allowed two writ applications and the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 1/A in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 and Annexures 2 and 2/A in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91 were quashed. As will appear from this judgment the learned Judges had referred to the two Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Md. Saghirand Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 (2) PLJR 427) and also in the case of Md. Sohrab and Ors. V/s. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 5202 of 1991 disposed of on 12th July, 1995 in which it was held that Rules 73 to 77 of Civil Courts Rules (Vol. I) were ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and were, therefore, declared as such. In this decision in paragraph 3 the following observations have been made: 3. As these applications are bound to succeed on a short question, as such, it is not necessary to state the facts. Undisputedly, the appointments have been made under Rule 73 of the Rules. It has been submitted that Rules 73 to 77 of the Civil Court Rules have been struck down as constitutionally invalid by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Saghir and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 (2) PLJR 427, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. In paragraph 4 of this judgment a reference has also been made to the case of Md. Sohrab (supra) in which these Rules were struck down in accordance with the decision in the case of Md. Saghir (supra). In this view of the matter both these writ applications were allowed and the impugned orders were quashed. 17. The matter was taken to the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4477-4478/1998 by Binod Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91) and others and Ram Ashray Mahto (petitioner No. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91) and others. In this view of the matter both these writ applications were allowed and the impugned orders were quashed. 17. The matter was taken to the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4477-4478/1998 by Binod Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91) and others and Ram Ashray Mahto (petitioner No. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91) and others. The Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of this Court passed by the Division Bench as mentioned above. Before the Hon ble Supreme Court it has been contended by the appellants that even de-hors the said Rules (Rules 73 to 77) of Civil Court Rules) their appointments were valid while the contesting respondents contended that even without reference to the said Rules the appointments of the appellants were invalid and that there was no challenge to the said Rules in two petitions. In view of these submissions of the parties the Hon ble Supreme Court has passed the following orders: Therefore, we set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what we have stated above. We have not adverted to or relying on any of the documents that have been filed in these proceedings to reach this conclusion. All contentions are left open to be considered by the High Court. Status-quo as to appointments of appellants shall be maintained until final disposal of the matter by the High Court. The appeals are allowed accordingly. This is how this matter has been placed before this Bench and is being considered and disposed of by this judgment. 18 A perusal of two Office Orders (Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90) as contained in Annexures 1 and 1/A of C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 will) show that these appointments were made under Rules 73 of the Civil Court Rules in accordance with the directions as contained in letter No. 2125/59/PF-4-134-89 dated 17-8-1988 (Annexure R/2-B of C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91) passed by this Court. Hence there is no denying the fact that the appointments of the respondent Nos. 5 to 32 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 and respondent Nos. 4 to 31 in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91 were made in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. As noticed above this Rule was struck down as unconstitutional in the two judgments noted above. Hence there is no denying the fact that the appointments of the respondent Nos. 5 to 32 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 and respondent Nos. 4 to 31 in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91 were made in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. As noticed above this Rule was struck down as unconstitutional in the two judgments noted above. Hence making these appointments can have no authority of law even when they were made in the year 1990 since Rules 73 according to which they were made was declared ultra vires of the constitution in two decisions by two different Benches of this Court. 19. Before the Hon ble Supreme Court the appellants have contended that even de-hors of the said Rules their appointments are valid while the respondents contended that even without reference to the said Rules the appointments of the appellants were invalid. In view of the contesting submissions of the parties on this point the Hon ble Supreme Court had remitted back the matter to this Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law with an observation that the High Court ought to have examined the contentions put forth in the petitions on the respective stands taken by the appellants/respondents in the course of the proceedings before it in view of this direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court we will now proceed to examine the respective cases of the parties de-hors of the said Rules. 20. From the facts stated in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 it would appear that there were vacancies in Class IV employees in the Judgeship of Sitamarhi existing in the month of April/May, 1986. The then District Judge of Sitamarhi had invited applications from elegible candidates for filling up those vacancies. The petitioners of this writ application had contended that they had filed their applications pursuant to the aforesaid advertisements. A selection committee was constituted consisting of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (two Addl. District Judges) and one Shri Jagdish Jha. Addl. District Judge (since deceased). It has. further been contended that to the best knowledge and the information of the petitioners the then District Judge, Sitamarhi did not call for any interview for the appointment to the aforesaid posts. Even without calling for any interview he had appointed respondent Nos. 5 to 32 in an arbitrary manner without consulting the members of the selection committee. It was also contended that respondent Nos. Even without calling for any interview he had appointed respondent Nos. 5 to 32 in an arbitrary manner without consulting the members of the selection committee. It was also contended that respondent Nos. 5 to 32 had never applied for the aforesaid post. Subsequently no fresh advertisement was ever issued in the newspapers inviting the applications for the aforesaid posts. In the supplementary affidavit in paragraph No. 4, it has been stated that Shri Ramakant Singh, the then District Judge had constituted a selection committee for the appointment of IVth grade employees which consisted of Shri R.D. Roy, A.D. J., Shri B.K. Dube, A.D. J. and Shri B.K. Jha, C.J.M. Since, however, Shri R.D. Roy was on leave the interview fixed for 22-6-1986 was postponed as will appear from Office Order No. 62/89 (Annexure-2). Shri Ramakant Singh retired on 31st July, 1986 and he was succeeded by Shri J.P. Verma who prepared a panel of four names only of the candidates who had applied. However, he did not take up the appointment matter. After transfer of Shri Verma, Shri A.P. Srivastava took charge of this Judgeship on 8-6-1989. He did not make any fresh advertisement for this appointment nor any notice was put on the notice board inviting applications for the said appointments. It has been alleged in this writ application that every thing was kept secret for the reasons best known to him and thereafter by the aforesaid two Office Orders 28 persons were appointed to the post. Various allegations have been made with respect to the appointment of respondent No. 29 Lai Babu Singh and respondent No. 21, Nand Lal alleging that they belonged to the village of respondent No. 2 Nazir, Sheristedar and Head Clerk of the Sitamarhi Judgeship also got their relatives appointed suppressing the fact that earlier an advertisement was issued by Ex-District Judge, Shri Ramakant Singh, in the year 1986 and that various application for the post were received by the Judgeship and were still pending. It was further alleged that respondent Nos. 10 and 27 were the nephews of respondent No. 4 Shri A.P. Sharma, Judge Incharge, Nazarat. It was further alleged that respondent Nos. 10 and 27 were the nephews of respondent No. 4 Shri A.P. Sharma, Judge Incharge, Nazarat. Similar allegations have been made about the relationship between some of the respondents with Nazirand Sheristedar: The matter was taken up to this Court on its administrative side and the Hon ble the Chief Justice was pleased to get the matter enquired into by the then District Judge, Sitamarhi Shri Raja Ram Sigh who after making a thorough enquiry submitted a report that no advertisement was ever made by respondent No. 2 for preparing the list of candidates for the appointment of Class IV employees in the Judgeship. On these grounds also it has been contended that these appointments should be quashed. 21. In C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91, respondent No. 2, Shri A.P. Srivastava, the then District Judge has filed his show-cause in which he has denied the allegations levelled against him. Four petitioners of this writ application were appointed on daily wages on different dates. Since after his joining the Judgeship on 8-6-1989 respondent No. 2 had to fact the hardship of want of staff in the Judgeship. He accordingly made the appointments and have also prayed for sanctioning 12 posts. Since the petitioners of this writ application had completed one year as regular employees their cases were taken up for appointment. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 was transferred to Ranchi as Judicial Commissioner. He has denied the allegations made against him. A reply to this show-cause has been filed on behalf of the respondents to which a reply was given by respondent No. 2, In his counter-affidavit respondent No. 2 had denied the allegations levelled against him. 22. Respondent Nos. 4 to 31 have also filed a counter-affidavit. They have contended that in the year 1992 this Court had framed Rules called as Bihar Civil Courts Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1992 which came into force on 3-10-1992 in which a different procedure has been provided for the recruitment of Class IV employees. In view of acute shortage of Class IV employees in the Judgeship the Judge Incharge, Nazarat (Administrative) wrote a letter dated 12-6-1990 and brought the matter to the knowledge of the District Judge. The notice dated 15-6-1990 inviting applications from elegible candidates was issued and displayed on the notice board of the Civil Court as contained in Annexure-1. In view of acute shortage of Class IV employees in the Judgeship the Judge Incharge, Nazarat (Administrative) wrote a letter dated 12-6-1990 and brought the matter to the knowledge of the District Judge. The notice dated 15-6-1990 inviting applications from elegible candidates was issued and displayed on the notice board of the Civil Court as contained in Annexure-1. Pursuant to this notice these respondents had applied for the post along with others. In all 55 applications were received and by the two Office Orders 28 persons were appointed to the posts. This is how it has been contended that there has been no illegality in making these appointments which were made in accordance with the Rules framed by the High Court as also in accordance with the law. On these grounds it has been contended that these writ applications be dismissed. 23. I will firstly refer to the Office Order Nos. 52/90 and 57/90 (Annexures 2 and 2/A of C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91). It will appear that a selection committee was constituted for selecting suitable candidates for these posts. In these two orders there is no mention about the constitution of this selection committee and the participation of its members in making these appointments. Even respondents No. 2 has not been able to produce any paper to show that the members of the selection committee had participated in making the aforesaid appointments and on this ground alone these Office orders appear to be improper. In any view of the matter the signatures of. the members of the selection committee do not appear on two office orders and even their names do not find mention in it. This is a great circumstance against the case of the respondents. So far as the advertisement on the notice board is concerned as mentioned in the counter-affidavit (a copy of the notice has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit), I have perused this notice and I, am pained to see the language used in it. Even ordinary spelling mistake has been committed in this notice said to have been displayed on the notice board. How could this pass scrutiny of the District Judge and members of staff is not clear. Even ordinary spelling mistake has been committed in this notice said to have been displayed on the notice board. How could this pass scrutiny of the District Judge and members of staff is not clear. I would not like to lay great stress on the allegations made against respondent No. 2 the effect that some of the respondents have given their wrong addresses of the different District of this State though in reality they belonged to the Village of respondent No. 2 in Uttar Pradesh. In this counter-affidavit respondent No. 2 has denied any knowledge about it. 24. However, from the facts stated above it would become clear that principles of natural justice have not been followed in making these appointments. The way in which the applications are said to have been invited does not inspire confidence. It has been contended that no, interview was called for and the members of the selection committee were not informed about the interview to be held. It has further been alleged that respondent Nos. 5 to 32 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 had been taken by the back door and they had not applied for the post. From the aforesaid it would appear that the appointments were not made in a bona fide manner after following the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter also these appointments cannot be sustained. 25. In the result these two writ applications are allowed and Annexures-1 and 1/ A of C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91 and Annexures 2 and 2/A of C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91 are hereby quashed, it appears that the private respondents in these cases have worked for several years pursuant to the orders of appointment. As such, I feel that, in case fresh advertisement is issued in the newspaper for filling up Class IV posts in the judgeship of Sitamarhi the private respondents may also apply for the same and if they are otherwise found elegible and suitable for appointment the same shall not be refused to them merely because they have crossed the upper age limit and in that event, age bar in relation to these respondents, shall be relaxed, if it is found that on the date of their appointments by Annexures 1 and 1/A and Annexures 2 and 2/A in the year 1990, they had not crossed the upper age limit. Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 26 I have gone through the Judgment drafted by Mrs. I.P. Singh, J. and I agree with the conclusions regarding the merits of the two writ petitions. I wish to add some view on my own in support of the conclusions. 27. The then District Judge, Sitamarhi Shri Rama Kant Singh had invited applications by advertisement for appointment to the post of Grade IV employees in the year 1986 and is pursuance to that the four petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 3691 of 1991 along with others had applied for the posts. Sri Ramakant Singh the then District and Sessions Judge had constituted an Appointment Committee but one of the members was on leave and so the interview was postponed. The order of the then District Judge, Sitamarhi bearing No. 62/86 dated 16-6-1986 which is Annexure-1 of the writ petition shows that the interview had been postponed as one of the members of the Committee was on leave. It has been mentioned in the said order that the applications of the candidates already received will be considered by the next committee which will be formed later on. According to respondent No. 2 Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava, District Judge, Sitamarhi the four petitioners were initially engaged/appointed on daily wages in 1985 and earlier and later their services were regularised for the three months in anticipation of sanction of the posts and after expiry of the said period of three months their services were extended for six months and thereafter, the appointment committee extended the period of service of these petitioners from 1 -12-1990 to 28-2-1991 and then their services were extended until further order in anticipation of sanction of posts by the State Government. Thus, the appointment of these four petitioners were not made on regular basis and it was only till further order. The grievance of these petitioners is that the appointments made by Sri A. P. Srivastava respondent No. 2 is mala fide on the ground that the advertisement made for appointment to the posts of Grade IV employees by Sri Ramakant Singh the then District Judge, Sitamarhi on the basis of which they and others had applied for the posts had been ignored. When these petitioners were already working on temporary basis and they had also applied for appointment in response to earlier advertisement for appointment to the posts of Grade IV employees their cases should have been considered by the respondent No. 2 Sri A.P. Srivastava the then District Judge, Sitamarhi for appointment to the said posts. According to show-cause of respondent No. 2 Sri A.P. Srivastava, 55 applications had been received in the officer, in response to the notice issued by him and a list of 14 applicants were prepared as candidate peons. This respondent (Sri A.P. Srivastava) has also stated in his show cause that he called for a report as to whether there had been pending application or any pending list of candidate peons and a report was prepared by Nazir, Head Clerk and Sheristedar and they had reported that there was no application or list of candidate peons pending consideration from before. Therefore, the Appointment Committee approved the list of 14 candidates. The statement that there was no application or list of candidate peons pending for consideration from before is falsified by Annexure-1 of the writ petition which is order No 62/1986 dated 16-6-1986 of Shri R.K. Singh the then District Judge, Sitamarhi which shows that the date of interview had been postponed at that time as one of the members of the Appointment Committee was on leave and it was ordered that he applications of candidates already received will be considered by the next committee which will be formed later on. 28. The respondent No. 2 has also stated in his show-cause that another list of 14 candidates was prepared in accordance with Rule 73 of the Civil Court Rules and those 14 persons had been included in the panel of applicants. On 24-9-1990 the members of the Appointment Committee had expressed their opinion that the District Judge alone is competent to make appointments of Class IV employees and this respondent placed the list of candidates before the Inspecting Judge and thereafter, he made appointments. The order of appointment of 14 persons is Annexure-2/A of the writ petition. On 24-9-1990 the members of the Appointment Committee had expressed their opinion that the District Judge alone is competent to make appointments of Class IV employees and this respondent placed the list of candidates before the Inspecting Judge and thereafter, he made appointments. The order of appointment of 14 persons is Annexure-2/A of the writ petition. The earlier copy of order of appointment is Annexure-2 of the writ petition, It is relevant to mention here that the order No. 52/1990 dated 7-11-1990 (Annexure-2) is the order regarding appointment of 14 persons as Grade IV employees and Order No. 57/1990 dated 7-12-1990 (Annexure-2/A) is the order of appointment of another 14 persons as Grade IV employees. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent No. 2 Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava the then District judge, Sitamarhi had appointed 28 persons as Grade IV employees in a period of one month i.e. from 7-11-1990 to 7-12-1990 by preparing two lists of 14 candidate peons each within such a short time. The above facts and the way in which the lists of the candidate peons were prepared and they were appointed as Grade IV employees and the fact that the applications which had been received earlier in response to the advertisement for appointment to the said posts were not considered, clearly show that the appointments made vide Annexures-2 and 2/A of C.W.J.C. No. 3691 of 1991 and vide Annexures-1 and 1/A of C.W.J.C. No. 1253 of 1991 by the respondent No. 2 Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava the then District Judge, Sitamarhi, are illegal and fit to be quashed. 29. With the above views I concur with the Judgment of Mrs. I.P. Singh, J.