Judgment CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD and SUBASH CHANDRA JHA JJ. 1. The State of Bihar, being aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7354 of 2000 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent. 2. Short facts giving rise in this present appeal are that the State Government through the letter of the Chief Secretary dated 3rd December, 1980, took a policy decision governing appointment to Class-IV posts. It contemplates preparation of a joint panel in each district. Paragraph 6 of the said letter specifically provides that the panel so prepared shall be valid for a period of one year. A panel was so prepared in the year 1984-85 in which names of 310 persons figure. From the said panel 45 persons were appointed in two phases, i.e., 38 persons were appointed by letter dated 16.8.1985 and 7 by letter dated 1.8.1985. However, those appointments were cancelled in the light of the letter of the Finance Department dated 12th June, 1985. The matter of cancellation of appointment was examined by a committee of the State Legislature and on its recommendation all 45 candidates appointed earlier were again appointed by letter dated 3.3.1989. 3. A meeting of Establishment Committee was held on 20.10.1990 which decided to treat the panel of the year 1984-85 to be the panel for the year 1990-91. It is the writ petitioners claim that their names find place in the said panel prepared for the year 1984-85 and same having been treated as a panel for the year 1990-91, petitioners 1 to 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 were appointed to Class-IV posts by letter dated 28th July, 1992 and petitioners No. 5 and 8 by letter dated 10.4.1991, whereas petitioner No. 9 by order dated 27.6.1991. 4. By identical order dated 30th January, 1999 services of all the petitioners were terminated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the light of the order of the Director of Education dated 30th November, 1998. Petitioners No.1 to 10 challenged their orders of termination by filing writ application which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2564 of 1999 (Ram Balak Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). Petitioner No. 11 challenged his order of termination in separate writ application which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2934 of 1999 (Ramjee Pandit V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). Petitioner No. 11 challenged his order of termination in separate writ application which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2934 of 1999 (Ramjee Pandit V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). C.W.J.C. No. 2564 of 1999 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the orders of termination were quashed. While doing so, this Court observed as follows: "The petitioners have filed the present application for quashing the order contained in Annexure-1 series by which the services of the petitioners, who were working in the office of the District Superintendent of Education and other offices, have been terminated in pursuance of the letter dated 30.11.98 contained in Annexure-2 issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. The aforesaid order of the Director (respondent No. 3) has been considered by this Court in CWJC Nos. 338 and 403 of 1999 on 8.3.99 and the same has been quashed on the ground that the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. As this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision the impugned orders contained in Annexure-1 series and Annexure-2 are quashed with an observation that the Director will issue show cause to all the persons indicating therein the grounds of cancellation of appointment with regard to each of the persons and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them will dispose of the matter according to law." C.W.J.C. No. 2934 of 1999 was also allowed by this Court by order dated 7.4.1999 and while quashing the order of termination this Court gave liberty to the respondents to proceed further in the matter after giving notice to the petitioners. 5. In the light of the aforesaid orders, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners. The District Magistrate was also called upon to certify appointment of the petitioners and submit report about the procedure followed in appointment. The District Magistrate neither certified the appointment nor give any report as to the procedure followed, the record being not available. 6. The petitioners filed their show cause and they were also given opportunity of oral hearing. On consideration of the materials placed on record it was found that petitioners were appointed illegally and hence by identical orders dated 26th June, 2000, their services were terminated. 6. The petitioners filed their show cause and they were also given opportunity of oral hearing. On consideration of the materials placed on record it was found that petitioners were appointed illegally and hence by identical orders dated 26th June, 2000, their services were terminated. Petitioners challenged those orders in the writ application which has given rise to the order impugned in the present appeal. 7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has quashed the order of termination as in its opinion the order of this Court in earlier writ applications, i.e., C.W.J.C. Nos. 6410 and 7720 of 2000 govern the field. Relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: "This Court, after considering the rival contentions held: "In the above premises, as the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that the District Magistrate did not submit report, and the report subsequently submitted by the District Magistrate supports the petitioners claim I have no hesitation in quashing the impugned orders dated 4.7.2000 contained in Annexure-9 in CWJC No. 6410/2000 and dated 5.7.2000 contained in Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 7720/2000." The case of the petitioners in this writ application is at par with the case of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 6410 and 7720 of 2000. Since those writ applications have been allowed and the order of termination of those petitioners have been set aside, in my opinion, the order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-18 governs the cases of those petitioners." Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.15 appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the case of the respondent-petitioners is covered by the decision of this Court dated 13.3.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6410 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 7720 of 2000. He submits that in the said case orders of termination of petitioners Prabhu Nath Singh and Lalan Kr. Mahto were under challenge. He further points out that Prabhu Nath Singh was appointed on compassionate ground and it is not the case of the respondents-petitioners that they have been so appointed. Mr. Mandal in order to drive home his point has referred to the order dated 13.3.2003 passed in LPA No. 743 of 2002 (State of Bihar & Ors. V/s. Prabhu Nath Singh) which has arisen out of the order passed in his case in that writ application. Mr. Mandal in order to drive home his point has referred to the order dated 13.3.2003 passed in LPA No. 743 of 2002 (State of Bihar & Ors. V/s. Prabhu Nath Singh) which has arisen out of the order passed in his case in that writ application. So far as Lalan Kr. Mahto is concerned, Mr. Mandal submits that his name figured in a panel different than the respondents-petitioners herein and, as such, respondents-petitioners case also cannot be equated with Lalan Kr. Mahto. 8 Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-petitioners, however, contends that the name of the respondents have been incorporated in the panel prepared in the year 1984-85 and the Establishment Committee having decided to consider the said panel to be the panel for the year 1990-91, it cannot be said that respondents appointment were illegal. 9. It is relevant here to state that the learned Single Judge has quashed the order only on the ground that the case of these respondents is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Prabhu Nath Singh (supra) and Lalan Kr. Mahto (supra) and, in that view of the matter, we deem it expedient to consider this aspect of the matter at the first instance. Undisputedly Prabhu Nath Singh was appointed on compassionate ground and Lalan Kr. Mahto from a panel different than the panel in which names of the respondents-petitioners find place. Not only this Prabhu Nath Singhs and Lalan Kumar Mahtos orders of termination have been set aside relying on earlier decisions of this Court in CWJC Nos. 6410 and 7720 of 2000 wherein this Court found the action of termination of service to be illegal in those cases termination of services were set aside on the ground that District Magistrate had not sent the report, though the report sent later showed that they were legally appointed. This is not the situation here. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case of the respondents-petitioners stands on a similar footing than the case of the aforesaid persons. 10. In difference to the submission made by Mr. Sinha we have examined the case on merit. According to the respondents-petitioners own showing their names find place in the panel of the year 1984-85 and from that panel they have been appointed in the year 1992. 10. In difference to the submission made by Mr. Sinha we have examined the case on merit. According to the respondents-petitioners own showing their names find place in the panel of the year 1984-85 and from that panel they have been appointed in the year 1992. The panel was prepared in the light of the decision of the State Government dated 3rd December, 1980. It provides for the validity of the panel for one year and does not confer powers on any authority to extend the life of the panel. Even if we assume in favour of the respondents-petitioners that the panel was later on treated to be a panel for the year 1990-91, the respondents-petitioners were appointed even thereafter. Not only this, names of 310 persons find place in the panel, out of whom 45 persons were appointed initially and it is not the case of the writ petitioners that they have only been left out and all other persons have been appointed. We are making this observation because the names of the respondents-petitioners find place at different places in the panel. In case, appointment had been made from the panel of 1984-85 such appointments should have been made according to the position of the persons in the panel. All these infirmities go to show that the appointment of these respondents-petitioners are illegal and their services were rightly terminated. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ application filed by the respondents-petitioners stands dismissed.