Judgment S.K.Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ. 1. This batch of four appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar, the respondents in the respective writ petitions, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, whereby termination of the services of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) have been set aside and the State Government has been directed to reinstate them with arrears of salary. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petitions. L.P.A. No. 1221 of 1999: 2 A summary of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. According to the writ petition, the sole writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of three months on a purely temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 535-765/- as Junior Accounts Clerk, and his services could be dispensed with without prior notice, by order dated 18.7.1983 (Annexure-2), issued under the signature of the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Project, Supaul. On his request, he was transferred to Ranchi vide order dated 12.12.1983 (Annexure-3), issued under the signature of the Director, Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition. The Rehabilitation Officer had sent his communication dated 21.5.1984 to the Director recommending the petitioners extension of service with retrospective effect and until further orders. The recommendation was accepted and the services of the petitioner were extended with retrospective effect and until further orders, by order dated 8.6.1984 (Annexure-5), issued under the signature of Director, Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition. This was followed by show-cause notices at different stages calling upon the petitioner to produce all the documents in support of his appointment. The petitioner had shown cause on both the occasions. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Director passed the impugned order dated 6.9.1997 (Annexure-1), whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground that the Rehabilitation Officer had no authority to appoint the petitioner, leading to the instant C.W.J.C. No. 592 of 1998. The same has been allowed by order dated 25.8.1999 on three grounds. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner will be deemed to have been appointed by the competent authority as his appointment was approved by the Director. He has continued for a period of thirteen years, and no fraud or misrepresentation is attributable to the petitioner. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner will be deemed to have been appointed by the competent authority as his appointment was approved by the Director. He has continued for a period of thirteen years, and no fraud or misrepresentation is attributable to the petitioner. He has consequently been reinstated on the substantive post with all consequential benefits. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar. L.P.A. No. 1468 of 1999: 3 According to the writ petition, the sole petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) was appointed on a Class-IV post on ad hoc basis for a period of six months on a purely temporary basis on the admissible salary and allowances and, therefore, the services of the petitioner could be dispensed with without any prior information, by order dated 31.3.1983 (Annexure-1), issued under the signature of the Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagmati Project, Sitamarhi. By order dated 31.5.1984 (Annexure-3), the petitioner (alongwith others) on his own request was transferred to Sakari. He (along with 25 others) was promoted to a Class-III post as per the Government Circulars and on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee by order dated 20.12.1988 (Annexure-4), issued under the signature of the Director. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner calling him upon to submit his letter of appointment. The petitioner had shown cause. On a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown by the petitioner, his services were dispensed with by order dated 5.6.1998 (Annexure-12), issued under the signature of the Director, on the ground that the Rehabilitation Officer had no authority to make appointment leading to the present C.W.J.C. No. 5692 of 1998. The same has been allowed by order dated 14.10.1999 on the grounds that the Rehabilitation Officer had the authority to make appointment, and also on the ground that the present petitioner and those of the analogous writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998) had worked for more than 9 to 15 years, and the impugned order was set aside, leading to the present appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar. L.P.A No. 1505 of 1999: 4 This appeal has been preferred by the respondents of C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998, which has been allowed by the aforesaid order dated 14.10.1999, whereby the writ petition has, for identical reasons, been allowed with identical relief. L.P.A No. 1505 of 1999: 4 This appeal has been preferred by the respondents of C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998, which has been allowed by the aforesaid order dated 14.10.1999, whereby the writ petition has, for identical reasons, been allowed with identical relief. It may bear repetition that the said C.W.J.C. No. 5692 of 1998 and C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 14.10.1999 on identical terms. C.W.J.C. No. 5692 of 1998 has given rise to aforesaid L.P.A. No. 1468 of 1999, and C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998 has given rise to the present L.P.A. No. 1505 of 1999. Thirteen writ petitioners had joined C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998, who have been arrayed as respondents in the present appeal. The factual position is substantially similar in both the writ petitions, except that the present petitioners were appointed on Class-IV posts and were given extension of service with retrospective effect until further orders and continued as Class-IV employees. In the present writ petition, there was no order similar to Annexure-4 of C.W.J.C. No. 5692 of 1998. The impugned order has similarly been set aside with identical relief. L.P.A. No. 235 of 2002: 5 According to the writ petition, the sole petitioner (the sole respondent herein) was similarly appointed by the Rehabilitation Officer as Chainman, a Class-IV post in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-425/-, on purely ad hoc basis, as a stop-gap arrangement, and could be dispensed with without prior information by order dated 24.10.1983 (Annexure-1), issued under the signature of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Irrigation Project, Bhagalpur. He was similarly given extension of service. Under the orders of the Director, similar show-cause notice was issued to him. On a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown by him, his services were also dispensed with by identical order and for identical reason leading to C.W.J.C. No. 7223 of 2001. Nine writ petitions including the present C.W.J.C. No. 7223 of 2001 have been allowed by a common order dated 10.1.2002. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner had continued for more than 10 years and was getting a scale. He has functioned satisfactorily and was not guilty of any misrepresentation or the like. Nine writ petitions including the present C.W.J.C. No. 7223 of 2001 have been allowed by a common order dated 10.1.2002. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner had continued for more than 10 years and was getting a scale. He has functioned satisfactorily and was not guilty of any misrepresentation or the like. The learned Single Judge has further observed that "...Even assuming that there were certain irregularities in engagement of the petitioners on temporary basis, that could be rectified immediately after their appointment/engagement but it appears that the period of engagement was extended from time to time giving legitimate expectations to the petitioners that their services have been regularised...". Aggrieved by this order, the State of Bihar preferred the present appeal, as well as eight other appeals which have been disposed of by a common judgment dated 29.1.2003, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, which has since been in The State of Bihar V/s. Prashant Kumar Sharma, 2003 2 PLJR 27 . It is further relevant to state that the writ-petitioners of those eight writ petitions preferred Siyaram Chaudhary and Others V/s. State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684 of 2004 which has been dismissed by order dated 11.7.2006, passed by the Supreme Court of India. Copy of the order is on record and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "In view of the recent decision of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1 , we are of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly." Sd/- S.B. Sinha Sd/- Dalveer Bhandari 6. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar have submitted in support of their respective appeals that the Rehabilitation Officer had no authority to make appointments. They have also submitted that this was part of a larger conspiracy which has engulfed the Land Acquisition Department all over the State of Bihar, whereby nearly 1000 employees of the level of Class-III and Class-IV were appointed with ulterior motives. After this came to the notice of the State Government, steps were taken to dispense with their services leading to the present writ petition. This led to prosecution of a large number of functionaries of the State Government for making such illegal appointments. The trial is still pending. After this came to the notice of the State Government, steps were taken to dispense with their services leading to the present writ petition. This led to prosecution of a large number of functionaries of the State Government for making such illegal appointments. The trial is still pending. They have next submitted that the initial engagements/appointments were back-door entries and without advertisement. They have also submitted that the orders on eight such writ petitions of similarly circumstanced employees were set aside by a common judgment of this Court in the State of Bihar V/s. Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra), and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. They have also submitted that the State Government acted with great care and caution, ensured a careful and detailed vigilance investigation, and on the civil side issued show-cause notices to the employees and on exhaustive consideration of the matter passed the impugned orders. They have also submitted that the matter is fully covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others V/s. Uma Devi (3) and Others 2006 4 SCC 1 . The petitioners are not entitled for consideration of their cases by a committee for the purpose of regularisation. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have advanced detailed submissions in support of the orders of the learned writ Courts. They have submitted that the first information report covers cases of illegal appointments for the period 1985-95. The petitioners were appointed earlier than that. They have next submitted that the Rehabilitation Officers had made temporary arrangements because the departments work was suffering and was ultimately approved by the Director. They have also submitted that the petitioners have worked for long periods covering 10 to 15 years and may be allowed to continue on equitable considerations. They have also submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in the State of Bihar V/s. Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra) stands on a different footing and the State of Bihar cannot take the benefit of the same. They have also relied on diverse orders of this Court whereby, in their submission, orders of identical nature have been upheld. They have also submitted that the scope of interference in appeal is limited and, therefore, this Court should dispose of the matter within the confines of the jurisdiction of appeal. They have also relied on diverse orders of this Court whereby, in their submission, orders of identical nature have been upheld. They have also submitted that the scope of interference in appeal is limited and, therefore, this Court should dispose of the matter within the confines of the jurisdiction of appeal. They have relied on the following reported judgments: (i) Amla Chakravarty (dead) V/s. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 2000 10 SCC 339 . (ii) Sheo Pujan Singh V/s. Pyare Lal, 2002 9 SCC 753 , paragraph 6. (iii) B. Leelavathi V/s. Honnamma and Another, 2005 11 SCC 115 . They have also relied on certain provisions of P.W.D. Code which, it is submitted, authorise the Rehabilitation Officer to make such temporary appointments. They have next submitted in the alternative that, in accordance with the direction in Secretrary, State of Karnataka and Others V/s. Uma Devi (3) and Others (supra), the cases of the writ petitioners may be referred to a Committee conter plated by it for consideration of their cases for the purpose of regularisation. It has lastly been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 5964 of 1998 that identical matters are pending before a Full Bench of this Court. 8. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is evident on the basis of a perusal of the materials on record that such appointments of Class-Ill and Class-IV employees in the Land Acquisition Department in mid 80s were done without any advertisement, and were at the instance of the Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer. To the extent it surfaced and came to the notice of the authorities, about 1000 such appointments were made. It received the attention of the State Government leading to the show-cause notices to all such employees. In most of the cases, they have shown cause and, on a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown, their services were dispensed with. What immediately attracts attention is that it seems to have been part of a well-organized conspiracy all over the State of Bihar. It assumed the dimension of a scam and had followed a uniform pattern. What immediately attracts attention is that it seems to have been part of a well-organized conspiracy all over the State of Bihar. It assumed the dimension of a scam and had followed a uniform pattern. All the appointments at Class-Ill and Class-IV levels were done initially for a limited period on ad hoc basis on purely temporary basis against the prescribed scale invariably under the orders of the Rehabilitation Officer. They were given extension of service with retrospective effect and until further orders, seemingly under the orders of the Director. It is further noticeable that only typed copies of the alleged orders of the Director have been placed on record. They have placed on record photocopies of the orders of some or most of the Rehabilitation Office.s but not one photocopy of the order of the Director is on record. 9. This speaks volumes about the magnitude of the conspiracy carried out uniformly throughout the State. The observations made in State of Bihar V/s. Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra), as stated in paragraph 13 of the judgment are that "...The State cannot be asked to produce such an order specially in a case where it has come out with a specific plea that neither there was an approval nor a consent. The writ petitioners if are relying upon the observations made in those appointment orders then it would be for them to bring on record certain material that their appointment orders were issued with prior approval of the Director General or any post facto sanction was given by him. In our considered opinion, the learned single Judge was not justified in observing that mention of this fact in the appointment order that the same were issued as per orders of the Director would clinch the issue. In our considered opinion, the burden was upon the writ petitioners to prove the fact which they miserably failed to discharge..." In other words, these observations of the Division Bench render typed copies of the alleged orders of the Director, approving the action taken by the Rehabilitation Officer, apocryphal. 10. This gigantic conspiracy spread all over the State of Bihar was investigated by the State of Bihar and has charge-sheeted a large number of authorities responsible for such appointments. 10. This gigantic conspiracy spread all over the State of Bihar was investigated by the State of Bihar and has charge-sheeted a large number of authorities responsible for such appointments. The Cabinet (Vigilance) Department was also impleaded as a party respondent in these appeals and were called upon to explain as to why the officers alone were prosecuted completely leaving out the beneficiaries, i.e. the appointees. The Cabinet (Vigilance) Department filed an affidavit and prayed for further time to answer this question. We have declined to do so, inter alia, for the reason that the State Government may be perhaps have thought that the authorities of the State Government were sought to be punished by criminal action, and the beneficiaries were punished by termination of their services. We do not wish to enter into this aspect of the matter. 11. The impugned action of the respondent authorities gave rise to a large number of writ petitions in this Court which have been disposed of by the learned single Judges gave rise to the present appeals and various others. The present C.W.J.C. No. 7223 of 2001, alongwith C.W.J.C. No. 14268 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 9380 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 9142 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 8602 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 9655 of 2001, C.W.J.C. 15876 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 8631 of 2001, and C.W.J.C. No. 13527 of 2000 were disposed of by common order dated 10.1.2002. The aforesaid batch of writ petitions (C.W.J.C. No. 14268 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 9380 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 9142 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 8602 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 9655 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 15876 of 2001, C.W.J.C. No. 8631 of 2001, and C.W.J.C. No. 13527 of 2000), other than the present C.W.J.C. No. 7223 of 2001, had given rise to eight appeals in this Court, which were disposed of alongwith other appeals by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 29.1.2003 in State of Bihar V/s. Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra), whereby the Division Bench have not agreed with the orders of the learned single Judge and the impugned orders passed by the Director have been restored. The Division Bench exhaustively considered the matter, dealt with all aspects of the matter, and have allowed the appeals. It has been held that the Rehabilitation Officer had no authority to make the appointments. The Division Bench exhaustively considered the matter, dealt with all aspects of the matter, and have allowed the appeals. It has been held that the Rehabilitation Officer had no authority to make the appointments. The same were made without advertisement and wide publicity which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The same had never received the approval of the Director. Appointment and continuance for some length of time on the basis of illegal orders, which are the product of ulterior motives, can never enure to the benefit of such persons. No equitable consideration arises in favour of such appointees. On the contrary, in the estimation of the Division Bench, it is the State Government which is entitled to protection for equitable consideration in such cases. Any direction to regularise their services not only tells on the budget of the State Government, and has also the propensity to enlarge the predetermined cadre. With great respect, we entirely agree with the observations made in paragraph 36 of the judgment which are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "36. The matter may also be appreciated from another angle. The writ petitioners were appointed in the year 1985 or so. Some of the petitioners were immediately terminated but were later on re-employed showing that they were illegally retrenched. The matter did not end there and an enquiry into the subject was made. The enquiry showed that all such persons were illegally appointed and the appointments were motivated. The State Government after finding that the appointments were illegal proposed to terminate the services of such persons and directed registration of first information report against the officer who had issued such orders. It is not in dispute before us that the said Officer is facing prosecution because he had issued, as alleged by the State Government, illegal orders which were contrary to law and were for reasons best known to the said officer. On one side the said officer/officers is/ are being prosecuted because they issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioners and on the other hand the petitioners, who were benefited by those illegal orders are requesting the High Court that they be allowed to continue and their services be regularised. On one side the said officer/officers is/ are being prosecuted because they issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioners and on the other hand the petitioners, who were benefited by those illegal orders are requesting the High Court that they be allowed to continue and their services be regularised. Would it not be fallacy of law that the person who issued the orders is being prosecuted, and the persons who are benefited by the said orders are to bo rewarded reinstatement in services or their regularisation? Would it not mean that the High Court is agreeing to the appointments and is finding the same to be valid or is exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of those persons who are benefited by illegal orders? The High Court certainly would not be a party to all these illegal exercises." The Division Bench rightly observed that in a situation like the present one, where the functionaries of the State Government responsible for such illegal appointments are being prosecuted, it would be travesty of justice to extend equitable justice to any employee and reinstate him in service. The order of the Division Bench squarely covers the cases of the present writ petitioners. As stated hereinabove, the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 12 In that view of the matter, we do not find it necessary to consider any other submission on behalf of either side. 13. By order dated 30.1.2008, the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar, was impleaded as a party respondent. We had also called for a report from the learned trial court about the present position. The learned Special Judge-I, Patna, has submitted his report dated 13.2.2008, wherein it is stated that 30 out of 43 accused persons have been charge-sheeted. Twelve have already obtained orders of anticipatory bail from this Court. Investigation is pending against eight accused persons. Against 18 accused persons non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued but execution report has not yet been received by this Court. We are unable to appreciate the tardy pace of investigation as well as the trial. The F.I.R. is of 18.2.1997, and investigation against 12 accused persons has still not been concluded. We are equally unable to appreciate as to why non-bailable warrants of arrest have not been executed against 18 accused persons. We are unable to appreciate the tardy pace of investigation as well as the trial. The F.I.R. is of 18.2.1997, and investigation against 12 accused persons has still not been concluded. We are equally unable to appreciate as to why non-bailable warrants of arrest have not been executed against 18 accused persons. All of them were undoubtedly Government Servants, were in permanent employment of the Bihar Government, and may at present be either serving or retired. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty in serving the warrants of arrest. Learned counsel for the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department submits that the matter will receive full attention of the investigating agency, and will make appropriate submissions before the learned trial court for expeditious disposal of the trial. 14. In the result, we do not agree with the orders of the learned Single Judges. The impugned orders passed by the Director in each case terminating the services of the petitioners are hereby upheld. The appeals are accordingly allowed with costs. We, however, refrain from imposing any costs in material terms on the employees because they are out of employment.