Judgment 1. The State Government and its functionaries have preferred this appeal taking exception to the order dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the Single Judge. By the said order, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent; quashed and set aside the order dated 26th September, 2001 whereby her services came to be terminated from the post of Supervisor from Non-Formal Education Scheme and directed the respondents therein (present appellants) to reinstate her with all consequential benefits. 2. The controversy arises from the facts which may be, briefly, noticed by us immediately. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the present respondent, the petitioner and the present appellants, the respondents. On 9th December, 1983, Government of Bihar through its Labour & Employment Department, issued an advertisement for appointment of Supervisor in Adult Education Projects. The qualification for the post of Supervisors was:- (a) degree holder i.e. graduate and (b) maximum age limit on 1st December, 1983 should be 40 years. The petitioner submitted an application alongwith many others through employment exchange for appointment on the said post. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee for interview and a panel of successful candidates was prepared by the Selection Committee. The petitioner alongwith other successful candidates was appointed and they joined their services in the month of August, 1984 at Adult and Non-Formal Education Project, Manjhi in Saran district. The petitioner continued to work as Supervisor for almost eight years but in the month of June, 1992 her services alongwith others who were also appointed as Supervisors, were brought to an end on the ground of abolition of posts. The petitioner as well as other affected employees approached this Court by filing various writ petitions; the petitioners writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 8071 of 1992. These writ petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench on 24th May, 1996 with a direction to the State Government and its functionaries to allow the petitioners and other similarly situated employees to continue against those posts and if those posts have been abolished, to adjust them in some other department. Ultimately, in the month of February, 1998, the petitioner was given a new appointment on the post of Clerk-cum-Accountant in the office of the Director, Mass Education, Bihar. The petitioner and other similarly situated persons joined their services in the said Directorate. Ultimately, in the month of February, 1998, the petitioner was given a new appointment on the post of Clerk-cum-Accountant in the office of the Director, Mass Education, Bihar. The petitioner and other similarly situated persons joined their services in the said Directorate. Again after a lapse of about four years, the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons came to be terminated on the ground that the State Government has decided to wind up the Non-Formal Education Scheme. The petitioner approached this Court again challenging the said termination. 3. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition as the writ petition filed by the similarly situated employee being C.W.J.C. No. 15365 of 2001 (Binod Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar and Others) had already been allowed vide order dated 14th February, 2005. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1199 of 2004, preferred from the said writ petition, was dismissed by the Division Bench and a petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State Government and its functionaries came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. 4. That the case of Binod Kumar Verma decided by the Single Judge on 14th February, 2005 has attained finality upto the Supreme Court and is identical to the controversy in hand is not disputed by the Government Counsel. 5. The order dated 14th February, 2005 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Binod Kumar Verma reads thus:- "Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The order, as contained in Annexure-1, issued vide memo No, 2434 dated 27th September, 2001, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner by virtue of order, as contained in Annexure-4, was appointed in the Directorate of Adult Education, but he is being terminated as an employee of Non-Formal Education Scheme. It is further submitted that one Radhey Shyam Sharma, who was also co-appointee alongwith the petitioner vide Annexure 4, and was terminated showing him an employee of Non-Formal Education Scheme, had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12182 of 2003. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of and the order of termination was quashed with a direction to reinstate him with all consequential monetary benefits. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of and the order of termination was quashed with a direction to reinstate him with all consequential monetary benefits. It is further submitted that same questions had fallen for consideration before this Court in two writ applications and vide orders, as contained in Annexures 18 series those writ applications were allowed and terminated employees of Non-Formal Education Scheme were directed to be reinstated. Prima facie, it appears from Annexure-4 that the petitioner was appointed in the Directorate of Adult Education and, therefore, he could have been treated to be an employee of Adult Education Scheme for all practical purposes. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity, whereby and whereunder he has been terminated showing an employee of Non-Formal Education Scheme. At the same time, it appears to me that similarly situated employee Radhey Shyam Sharma was directed to be reinstated by this Court by order, as contained in Annexure-17. Learned counsel for the State, however, is not in a position to distinguish the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma, from that of the petitioner, as referred to above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure-17, and the order, as contained in Annexure-1, is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate him with all consequential monetary benefits." 6. Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 1199 of 2004 challenging the aforesaid order dated 14th February, 2005 in the case of Binod Kumar Verma was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7th January, 2005 by following order:- "After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-respondent for reinstatement in service has been allowed. The only question involved in this case Is as to whether the termination of services of the writ petitioner-respondent by treating him an empioyee under Non-Formal Education scheme is right or not. Learned Single Judge has found that the writ petitioner was appointed in the department of Adult Education. Later on he was posted on a post under Non-Formal Education Scheme. Learned Single Judge has found that the writ petitioner was appointed in the department of Adult Education. Later on he was posted on a post under Non-Formal Education Scheme. Accordingly, it was held that even the petitioner was posted under Non-Formal Education Scheme, he was appointed in the different department and as such he cannot be terminated. The said view was expressed by the learned Single Judge order of this court dated 13.5.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12469 of 2002 which has attained finality as there is nothing on record to show that the said order was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed." 7. As noticed above, Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government and its functionaries, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. 8. As a matter of fact, the decision in the case of Binod Kumar Verma is founded on an earlier decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12182 of 2003 (Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and Others) and that the decision in the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma has attained finality is also not in dispute. Thus, it is seen that in respect of similarly situated employees, who were appointed alongwith the petitioner in the Directorate of Adult Education, and whose services came to be terminated alongwith the petitioner as employees of Non-Formal Education Scheme, this Court has already set aside such termination orders and the orders of this Court have attained finality. In this view of the matter, the order of the Single Judge setting aside the order of termination relating to the petitioner and directing the respondents therein (present appellants) to reinstate her with all consequential monetary benefits cannot be faulted as it is consistent with the earlier decisions of this Court which have already attained finality. 9. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, devoid of any substance. It is dismissed with no order as to cost.