honble LODHA, J.–This group of four appeal arises from the order dated 8th March, 2007 passed by the Single Judge whereby he disposed of two writ petitions being (i) Civil Writ Petition No. 2749/2005, Rajasthan Indian Medicine Board Karamchari Sangh vs. Board of Indian Medicine,Rajasthan, Jaipur and another; and (ii) Civil Writ Petition No. 3763/2006, Jagdish Prasad Sharma (LDC) vs. Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur & another. Out of this group of four appeals, two appeals are at the instance of the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The other two appeals are at the instance of the State Government. (2). At the out-set Mr. Sandeep Pathak, advocate for Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General prayed for time on the ground of non-availability of Mr. Bharat Vyas. The prayer for adjournment was seriously opposed by Mr. R.C. Joshi, counsel for the contesting respondent. He invited our attention to the proceedings, particularly that took place on 21.2.2008, 24.3.2008, 11.4.2008 and 22.4.2008 and submitted that the prayer for adjournment on behalf of Mr. Bharat Vyas is unreasonable. (3). On 21st February, 2008, Mr. Sandeep Pathak, brief holder appeared for Mr. Bharat Vyas and prayed for time. The order dated 21st February, 2008 reads thus: "Mr. Sandeep Pathak, brief holder for Mr. Bharat Vyas Additional Advocate General prays for time which is not objected to by the counsel representing the other side. 2. The appeal is, accordingly adjourned for one week." (4). Then on 24th March, 2008, Mr. Hukam Chand Saini advocate appeared for Mr. K.N. Sharma and sought time on his behalf due to eye operation of his father. The matter was, accordingly, adjourned. The order dated 24th March, 2008 reads thus: Mr. Hukam Chand Saini advocate appears and submits that Mr. K.N. Sharma, the counsel for the appellant is not available due to eye operation of his father. He prays for time. 2. Stand over to 9th April, 2008". (5). On 11th April, 2008 again a prayer for adjournment was made by Mr. Bharat Vyas. As last indulgence, the Bench granted time and matter was ordered to be posted on 15th April, 2008 making it clear that no request for adjournment shall be entertained on that date. The order dated 11th April, 2008 reads thus: "As last indulgence, put up on 15.4.2008, as prayed for by learned Additional Advocate General. Bharat Vyas. As last indulgence, the Bench granted time and matter was ordered to be posted on 15th April, 2008 making it clear that no request for adjournment shall be entertained on that date. The order dated 11th April, 2008 reads thus: "As last indulgence, put up on 15.4.2008, as prayed for by learned Additional Advocate General. It is made clear that on no ground these matters would be adjourned on 15.4.2008." (6). Although, there was an order that no prayer for adjournment shall be entertained yet on 22nd April, 2008, the request for adjournment was made because of indisposition of Mr. Bharat Vyas. Keeping this aspect into consideration, the matter was adjourned for today. The order dated 22nd April, 2008 reads thus: "Mr. K.N. Sharma, counsel for the appellant submits that State has also preferred appeals being SAW No. 1448/2007 and 1471/2007 challenging the impugned order and on behalf of the State Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General is to argue those appeals but because of his indisposition, he has not been able to come to the Court. He, therefore, prays for time. 2. For the stated reason, let the appeals be posted for admission on 25th April, 2008." (7). The request for adjournment, thus, made today by Mr. Sandeep Pathak for and on behalf of Mr. Bharat Vyas is highly unreasonable. We, accordingly, reject the prayer for adjournment. (8). Mr. Sandeep Pathak for Mr. Bharat Vyas and Mr. K.N. Sharma were then asked to argue the matter and so also Mr. R.C. Joshi, counsel for the contesting respondent. (9). We heard the advocates for the parties. (10). The grievance raised by the respective petitioners before the Single Judge in the writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2749/2005 Rajasthan Indian Medicine Board Karamchari Sangh vs. Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur & another and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3763/2006 Jagdish Prasad Sharma (LDC) vs. Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, Jaipur & another), related to the age of superannuation of the employees working in the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan. According to them, the age of superannuation having been enhanced by the state government for its employees from 58 years to 60 years, the employees of the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, have also become entitled for their continuance in service up to attainment of age of 60 years. (11). According to them, the age of superannuation having been enhanced by the state government for its employees from 58 years to 60 years, the employees of the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, have also become entitled for their continuance in service up to attainment of age of 60 years. (11). We deem it proper at the out-set to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 (for short, `the Act of 1954). (12). Section 3(ii) and 3(xiv) define `Chairman & `Registrar of the Board of Indian Medicine thus: "3(ii)-"Chairman" means the Chairman of the Board. 3(xiv) - "Registrar" means the person appointed as such under Section 26 and includes any person for the time being holding the office or performing the duties of the Registrar under proper authority." (13). The establishment of the Board is done by virtue of power conferred upon the state government under Section 4. Section reads thus: "4. Establishment of the Board-The State Government shall by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, establish in the manner provided in section 6, a Board to be called the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. Such Board shall be body corporate, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and may by the said name sue or be sued." (14). As per Section 6, the Constitution of the Board is as follows: "6. Constitution of the Board. (1) The Board shall consist of eleven members, including the Chairman, appointed in the following manner, namely: (i) The chairman shall be nominated by the State Government preferably from amongst practitioners and shall not be a paid servant of the Government. (ii) Three members shall be nominated by the State Government from amongst Vaidyas who are paid servants of the Government. (iii) One member shall be nominated by the State Government from amongst Hakims who are paid servants of the Government. (iv) Four members shall be elected by the registered Vaidyas from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. (v) One member shall be elected by the registered Hakims from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. (vi) One member shall be elected by the registered midwives from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), all the members of the first Board established under Section 4, shall be nominated by the State Government. (v) One member shall be elected by the registered Hakims from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. (vi) One member shall be elected by the registered midwives from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), all the members of the first Board established under Section 4, shall be nominated by the State Government. (3) Every member other than the Chairman of the Board must possess at least ten years experience of practice in an Indian system of medicine, surgery or midwifery, as the case may be. (4) The Board shall elect in the prescribed manner one of its members to be the Vice-Chairman whose term of office shall be for one year." (15). Section 25 provides for powers and duties of the Chairman in the following manner. "25. Powers and duties of Chairman-(1) The Chairman shall preside over and conduct the meetings of the Board and the Committee and shall cause the recommendations of each Committee to be placed before the Board. He shall cause all decisions of the Board to be executed and carried out in a lawful manner without any unnecessary delay and shall be responsible to the Board for such execution and carrying out. (2) The Registrar and all other officers and servants of the Board shall be under the direct control and supervision of the Chairman and shall abide by his order." (16). The provisions contained in Section 26 with regard to appointment of Registrar reads thus: "26. Registrar.-(1) The State Government shall appoint, for the purposes of this Act, a person being a practitioner, to be the Registrar who shall exofficio be the Secretary of the Board and each Committee and shall receive such salary and allowances, as the State Government may from time to time determine. (2) The Registrar shall not be removable from his office or otherwise punishable except with the approval of the State Government." (17). Section 27 deals with the appointment of officers and servants of the Board and also empowers the state government to make Rules regulating the power to the Board to punish the officers and servants appointed under Section 27. It reads thus: "27. Section 27 deals with the appointment of officers and servants of the Board and also empowers the state government to make Rules regulating the power to the Board to punish the officers and servants appointed under Section 27. It reads thus: "27. Other officers and servants.-(1) The State Government may appoint such other officers and servants, as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act and determine the number and designations of such officers and servants and their salaries and allowances. (2) The State Government shall make rules regulating the power of the Board to punish the officers and servants of the Board appointed under this section." (18). By virtue of Section 28, the conditions of service of servants of the state government of similar status have been made applicable to the Registrar and other officers and servants of the Board. Section 28 reads as follows: "28. Conditions of service etc.,-The conditions of service of the Registrar and other officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 27 shall be the same as those of servants of the State Government of similar status, and all questions of their pay, allowances, promotion, leave, pension and provident fund shall be governed by rules applicable to the latter." (19). Section 59 provides for control of the Board by the state Government. The said provision reads thus: "59. Control of Board by State Government.- If at any time it shall appear to the State Government that the Board has failed to exercise or has exceeded or abused a power conferred upon it under this Act or has failed to perform a duty imposed upon it by this Act, the State Government may, if it considers such failure, excess, or abuse to be of serious character, notify the particulars thereof to the Board and if the Board fails to remedy such default, excess or abuse within such time as may be fixed by the State Government in this behalf, the State Government may dissolve the Board and cause all or any of the powers and duties of the Board to be exercised and performed by such agency and for such period, as it may think fit: Provided that it shall take steps within six months to constitute a new Board under the provisions of this Act." (20). Having surveyed some of the statutory relevant provisions contained in the Act of 1953, we may now refer to some of the documents which are part of record and, in our opinion, relevant for consideration of the controversy. (21). By a communication dated 27.5.1969, the State Government communicated to the Registrar of the Board that as per the provisions contained in the Act of 1953, the Rajasthan Service Rules applicable to the government employees is also applicable to the Board employees. The said communication is as follows: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj fpfdRlk ,oa tu LokLF; foHkkx ,Q 2¼11½¼49½@fpfdRlk@59 fnukad 27 ebZ 69 jftLVªkj cksMZ vkQ bfUM;u esfMflu jktLFkku gokegy] t;iqjA fo"k; % cksMZ esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokvksa ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] vkids i`"Bkadu i= Øekad 256] 14 ebZ 69 ds lanHkZ esa funskkuqlkj ys[k gS fd jktLFkku nskh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e 1953 ds vuqlkj cksMZ deZpkfj;ksa ij Hkh jktLFkku lsok fu;e gh ykxw gksaxs vr% vkIku nsus ds ipkr Hkh cksMZ ds deZpkjh jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj isUku rFkk xzsP;qVh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA Hkonh; vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh** (22). That the Chairman of the Board has been notified as `Head of Department in Schedule 8 appended to the General Financial and Accounts Rules is not in disputes. Rule 2(xvii) of these Rules defines `Head of Department. Item No. 173 of Schedule 8 appended to the General Financial and Accounts Rules refers to Chairman of the Board as Head of Department. There also seems to be no controversy that by virtue of the powers delegated by the State Government, the Chairman of the Board is competent to appoint the officers (other than Registrar) as well as the employees up to ministerial staff while Registrar is empowered to appoint Class IV employees in the Board. (23). On 24.5.2004, the Government of Rajasthan took a decision to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. It transpires that by a communication dated 18.11.2004, the State Government sought the report from the Registrar of the Board in this regard vide its reply dated 14.12.2004, the Board intimated to the State Government that by virtue of Section 28 of the Act of 1953, the service conditions of the employees of the State Government are applicable to the employees of the Board. The State Government was informed of the decision taken by the Board on 12.10.2004 increasing the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years keeping in view the provisions contained in section 28 of the Act of 1953. We deem it proper to reproduce the communication dated 14.12.2004 sent by the Registrar of the Board to the concerned Deputy Secretary as it is which reads thus: cksMZ vkQ bafM;u esfMflu jktLFkku] t;iqj IykV ua 1- bZ] egkohj m|ku ds lehi] ctktuxj] t;iqj-15 Øekad 3852 fnukad 14-12-2004 mi kklu lfpo egksn;] fpfdRlk ¼xzqi-4½ vk;qosZn foHkkx] kklu lfpoky; t;iqj fo"k; %vuqnku xzghrkvksa esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh lsok,a Hkh jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h lsok vk;q 60 o"kZ rd ds lEcU/k esaA lanHkZ% fpfdRlk ¼xqzi- 4½ vk;q- foHkkx dk i= Øekad ia 25¼38½ vk;q 2004 fnukad 18-11-2004. egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd jktLFkku nskh; fpfdRlk i)fr vf/kfu;e 1953dh /kkjk 28 esa ;g izko/kku gS fd ^^iath;d rFkk 27 ds vUrxZr fu;qDr cksMZ ds vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj lsodksa dh lsok dh krsZ os gh gksaxh tks oSlh gh fLFkfr esa jkT; ljdkj ds lsodksa dh gks vkSj muds osru] HkRrs] rjDdh] NqV~Vh] isaku vkSj izksohMsUV Q.M ds izuksa ij os gh fu;e ykxw gksaxs tks ljdkj ds lsodksa ij ykxw gksrs gSA** jktLFkku bafM;u esfMflu cksMZ esa mDr 28 /kkjk ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj cksMZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ij jkT; ljdkj ds fu;e ykxw gSaA jkT; ljdkj us vknsk Øekad ia- 1¼6½ foRr@fu;e@98 fnukad 24-5-2004 ds }kjk jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf"kZd vk;q fnukad 24-5-2004 ls 58 ls c<kdj 60 o"kZ dj nh gSA jktLFkku bafM;u esfMflu cksMZ us jktLFkku ns-kh; fpfdRlk i)fr vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk 28 dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, viuh cSBd fnukad 12-10-2004 esa cksMZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fr vk;q 58 ls c<kdj<+>60 djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k gSA jktLFkku bafM;u esfMflu cksMZ dh cSBd fnukad 12-10-2004 dh dk;Zokgh fooj.k layXu dj fuosnu gS fd cksMZ }kjk fn;s x;s mDr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V djokus dh O;oLFkk djsaA layXu%& 1- jktLFkku nskh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e 1953 dh izfr ewy ¼i`-la- 1 ls 54 rd½ 2- cksMZ vf/kosku fnukad 12-10-2004 dh izkslhfMax dh izfr ,d ¼i`-la- 1 ls 4 rd½ Hkonh; ¼y{ehukjk;.k oekZ½ jftLVªkj**<span> (24). Along with the aforesaid communication, the copy of the resolution passed by the Board on 12.10.2004 was also annexed. Along with the aforesaid communication, the copy of the resolution passed by the Board on 12.10.2004 was also annexed. Item No. 5 of the said resolution dated 12.10.2004 reads thus:- ^^5: jkT; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr cksMZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fr vk;q 60 lky djus ij fopkj%& jktLFkku nskh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk 28 dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, loZlEefr ls cksMZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fr vk;q 60 lky djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA** (25). The same position was reiterated by the Board to the State Government vide communication dated 10.2.2005 which reads thus: cksMZ vkQ bafM;u esfMflu jktLFkku] t;iqj IykaV ua- 1- bZ] egkohj m|ku ds lehi] ctktuxj] t;iqj] 15 Chariman: No. 391 Dr. Kripal Singh Galhotra Ayurvedacharya (Ophthalmic Surgion) Pranacharya (M.A., M.S., H.M., Sri Lanka) M.A. (Hindi), LL.B.D. Litt. The same position was reiterated by the Board to the State Government vide communication dated 10.2.2005 which reads thus: cksMZ vkQ bafM;u esfMflu jktLFkku] t;iqj IykaV ua- 1- bZ] egkohj m|ku ds lehi] ctktuxj] t;iqj] 15 Chariman: No. 391 Dr. Kripal Singh Galhotra Ayurvedacharya (Ophthalmic Surgion) Pranacharya (M.A., M.S., H.M., Sri Lanka) M.A. (Hindi), LL.B.D. Litt. (Bihar) 16-G Block, Sri Gangangar (Raj.) 0154-2420125 (Clinic) Dated 10.2.05 2421445, 243125 (Resi.) ekuuh; Jh th-,l- la/kw kklu lfpo fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; ,oa vk;qosZn foHkkx jktLFkku ljdkj t;iqj fo"k; %&cksMZ vkQ bafM;u esfMflu jktLFkku t;iqj esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf"kZd dh vk;q esa o`f) djus ds lEcU/k esaA lanHkZ%& fpfdRlk ¼xzqi- 4½ vk;q foHkkx dk i= Øekad i- 25¼38½ vk;q 2004 fnukad 8-11-2004 egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd jkT; ljdkj ¼foRr foHkkx½ ds ifji= i- 1¼6½ foRr@fu;e@98 t;iqj fnukad 24 ebZ 2004 ds }kjk jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf"kZd vk;q fnukad 31 ebZ 2004 esa 58 ls c<kdj 60 o"kZ dj nh x;h gSA jktLFkku ns-kh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk 28 esa ;g izko/kku gS fd iath;d rFkk 27 ds vUrxZr fu;qDr cksMZ ds vU; deZpkfj;ksa vkSj lsodksa dh lsok dh -krsZ os gh gksaxh tks oSlh gh fLFkfr ls jkT; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa dh gks vkSj muds osru] HkRrs] rjDdh] NqV~Vh] isaku vkSj izksohMsUV Q.M ds izuksa ij os gh fu;e ykxw gksaxs tks ljdkj ds lsodksa ij ykxw gksus gSaA jkT; ljdkj ds i=kad ,Q 2¼11½¼49½ fpfdRlk /59 fnukad 27 ebZ 69 esa Hkh mYys[k gs fd ^^jktLFkku ns-kh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e 1953 ds vuqlkj cksMZ deZpkfj;ksa ij Hkh jktLFkku lsok fu;e gh ykxw gksaxs vr% vkI-ku nsus ds ipkr Hkh cksMZ ds deZpkjh jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj isa-ku rFkk xzsP;qVh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs ¼layXu ifj-A½ pwafd jktLFkku nskh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk 4 ds vuqlkj cksMZ ,d dkjiksjsV fudk; gS rFkk jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk Øekad i- 8¼8½ vk;q/86 t;iqj fnukad 31-12-2002 xfBr cksMZ orZeku esa dk;Zjr gS ¼layXu ifjfk"V -2½ us viuh cSBd fnukad 12-10-2004 esa jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh rjg cksMZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fr vk;q 58 ls c<kdj 60 o"kZ djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k gSA ftlds vuqlkj cksMZ ds jftLVªkj ds i=kad 3852 fnukad 14-12-04 ds }kjk fu.kZ; dh iqf"V gsrq jkT; ljdkj dks fuosnu fd;k x;k rFkk cksMZ ds i=akd 151 fnukad 19-1-2005 ds }kjk Lej.k i= Hkh Hkstk x;k ijUrq vHkh rd Hkh fu.kZ; dh iqf"V izkIr ugha gqbZ gSA ;gka ;g fuosnu djuk mfpr gksxk fd mijksDrkuqlkj cksMZ ,d Lok;Rr-kklh laLFkk gS] ftldks jkT; ljdkj dsoy 2]91]000 jkfk dk izfro"kZ vuqnku nsrh gS ks"k O;; cksMZ viuh vk; ls ogu djrk gSA ftlls mDr izdkj ls jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh rjg cksMZ deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fr vk;q 58 ls 60 o"kZ djus ij jkT; ljdkj ij dksbZ foRrh; Hkkj ugha iM+sxkA vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd mDr cksMZ fu.kZ; dh iqf"V -kh?kz fHktokus dk Je djsaA layXu % 2 Hkonh; ¼Mk-d`ikyflag xygks=½ v/;{k (26). A close look at the provisions contained in Sections 27 and 28 of the Act of 1953, the order issued by the State Government on 27.5.1069, the communications sent by the Board to the State Government on 14.12.2004 and 10.2.2005 and the resolution dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Board leave no manner of doubt that the service conditions of the State Government employees are applicable to the employees of the Board. As a matter of fact, the State Government has been very clear about this right from the year 1969 which is reflected from the communication dated 27.5.1969 addressed by the State Government to the Registrar of the Board. This position has been also very clear to the Board which is apparent from the resolution passed by it on 12.10.2004. That the Board has been very clear that by virtue of Section 28 of the Act of 1953, its employees are governed by the service conditions of the State government of the same status is also reflected from the communication dated 14.1`2.2004 sent by the Board to the State Government as well as further communication dated 10.2.2005. (27). Mr. Sandeep Pathak, the counsel for the State Government relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court dated 7th May, 2007 in the case of B. Bharat Kumar and others vs. Osmania University and others. In the case of B. Bharat Kumar, the petitioners were serving different private colleges which were enjoying grant-in- aid by the government. They prayed that their age of superannuation be raised to 62 years as has been done to the teachers (Lecturers, Professors, Readers etc.) governed by the scheme framed by the University Grants Commission. The Supreme Court considered the scheme which was applicable to the teachers in the Universities including Agriculture Universities and colleges (excluding Agricultural, Medical and Veterinary Science Colleges) admitting privileges of the Universities and observed that the scheme framed by the University Grants Commission providing for enhancement of superannuation age to 62 years was not binding upon the Government. It was held that it was not for the court to formulate a policy as to what the date of retirement should be. This is what the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 19. That reads thus: "19. Learned counsel also argued, to a great extent, the desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to 60 or 62 as the case may be. This is what the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 19. That reads thus: "19. Learned counsel also argued, to a great extent, the desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to 60 or 62 as the case may be. We again reiterate that it is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing into the dangerous area of the wisdom of the Legislation. If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not increase it to 60 or as the case may be 62, it was perfectly justified into doing so." (28). As to what should be the age of retirement is surely the exclusive domain of legislation and it is for the State Government to formulate a policy about the retirement age of its employees. In so far as present case is concerned, the question does not relate to as to what should be the age of retirement of the Government employees or for that matter the Board. The Board employees, by virtue of Section 28 of the Act of 1953, claim that the service conditions applicable to the servants of the State Government of similar status are applicable to them. According to them, once the state government took the decision to enhance the superannuation age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years, by virtue of Section 28, their superannuation age has been enhanced ipso facto and they are entitled to work up to 60 years. This position has been accepted by the Board as has been noticed by us vide various communications sent to the State Government. As a matter of fact, way back in the year 1969, the state Government without any ambiguity or doubt made it clear that the Board employees are governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules applicable to the government employees. (29). Seen thus, the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. (30). We find no merit in this group of special appeals. All these appeals are dismissed accordingly.