JUDGEMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. State of Bihar and its Officers, aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2007 passed in MJC No. 2967 of 2006, have preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. In view of the order which we propose to pass in this appeal, it is inexpedient to give in detail facts of the case, Suffice it to say that petitioners appointment has been found to be illegal by the Director in its order as contained in Memo dated 4th of July, 2000. Writ petitioner-respondent challenged the said order, inter alia contending that his appointment is legal and therefore termination of his service is bad in law. This found favour with the learned Single Judge and by the impugned order it had set aside the order of termination. 3. In this appeal it has been contended by the appellants that the appointment of the writ-petitioner is illegal and therefore rightly terminated. 4. However Mr. Shivendra Kishore, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the appointment of the writ-petitioner is legal and in accordance with law and ought not to have been terminated. 5. In similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [ 2007(2) PLJR 509 ] had directed the Chief Secretary of the State to constitute a Committee of three Secretaries to examine the manner and mode of appointment. In the said case the following directions have been given:- "The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar is directed to constitute a Committee of three Secretaries within a period of one month from today to examine the manner and mode and the type of Modus Operandi whether the appointments are in consonance with the recruitment Rules, regular, legal or not. The Committee shall consider the individual case after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees and reach to a decision as to the nature of their appointments whether legal or not and valid or not. The Committee shall, obviously, take the decision in the light of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors: (2006)4 SCC 1 : [2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363] and in particular, the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court which are quoted hereinabove, particularly, paragraph 53 of the said judgment. Vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors: (2006)4 SCC 1 : [2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363] and in particular, the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court which are quoted hereinabove, particularly, paragraph 53 of the said judgment. It shall also be remembered that the exercise of regularization, if required, shall be one time measure for the whole department and no further such exercise shall be permissible. The exercise by the Committee is directed to be completed within six months and in the event of any necessity it will be open for the concerned party to seek extension time from this Court. The State is directed to maintain . the status quo." 6. We dispose off the appeal in the same terms.