JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard leaned Counsels for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders of termination of their services dated 14.6.2002 at Annexure 1 in both writ applications. The impugned orders are couched in common language and set out the same grounds for termination. There is a marked similarity on facts. These two cases have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 3. In both the writ applications it is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on the post of Clerk by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur on the recommendation of the Divisional Establishment Committee. That their names were duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The issue of their appointment has been investigated by the respondents on more than one occasion. The issue of validity of appointments made by calling for names from the Employment Exchange and recommendation of the Establishment Committee on that basis has been considered by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 7596 of 2000 (Sri Ravindra Kumar Tiwary V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) disposed on 30.8.2000 with regard to appointment made by very same Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division in like manner. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be retained in service and their termination was not justified in law. This Bench decision has been affirmed by a Division Bench in LPA No. 1518 of 2000, which in turn has been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 6077 of 2001 disposed on 14.9.2001. 4. Learned Counsel for the State contended that the appointment was without any advertisement and preparation of panel. That roster clearance was not taken. The appointment was therefore illegal and contrary to the prescribed procedure. Adequate notice to show cause was given to the petitioners. They filed their replies and after consideration of which their services have been terminated. 5. The specific assertion of the petitioners that their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange and in pursuance of which their names were recommended for appointment after consideration by the Establishment Committee has not been denied in the counter affidavit. They filed their replies and after consideration of which their services have been terminated. 5. The specific assertion of the petitioners that their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange and in pursuance of which their names were recommended for appointment after consideration by the Establishment Committee has not been denied in the counter affidavit. If that be correct, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether their appointment on their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and considered by the Divisional Establishment Committee shall be deemed to be an illegal appointment in absence of any advertisement or will such appointment made through the mode of the Employment Exchange be considered to be a valid appointment. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court. It has been held that appointment through Employment Exchange may not be the most desirable method of appointment but it was certainly not an illegal mode of appointment. In the case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary (Supra) a Bench of this Court was considering a similar objection on behalf of the respondents with regard to the absence of any advertisement and preparation of a panel, as also absence of roster clearance. The Court observed that so long that the issue of appointment from names sponsored by the Employment Exchange is not denied as also consideration by the Divisional Establishment Committee, in absence of allegation of malafide or fraud the appointment cannot be vitiated for the aforesaid reasons. If roster clearance had not been taken and the appointing authority did not adhere to procedure the appointee cannot be penalised, more so, when there are no allegation of appointment having been made on extraneous consideration. It has already been noticed above that the aforesaid judgement has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court. 6. This Court also in CWJC No. 4333 of 2000 (Bharat ram and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) by a judgement and order dated 8.4.2005 has taken a similar view with regards to appointment by calling of names from the Employment Exchange and consideration by the Establishment Committee in which reliance has also been placed upon AIR 1998 SC 331 (Arun Tiwary V/s. Zila Man Sevi Shikshak Sangh and Ors.) in support of the proposition that the appointment made through the mode of Employment Exchange cannot be per se be termed illegal. 7. In view of the law already laid down by this Court, affirmed by the Apex Court and the legality of appointment made through Employment Exchange and the Divisional Establishment Committee which would not per se vitiate an appointment in absence of the advertisement, the impugned orders of termination dated 14.6.2002 in both writ applications are not sustainable. They are set aside. 8. The writ applications stand allowed. 9. The issue of back wages shall be decided by the competent authority if the petitioners make an application to that effect after holding enquiry of the status of the petitioner in the interregnum.