Judgment Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. All these writ petitions have been argued and contested on the common grounds between the parties, they have been heard analogous. Since the grievances of the petitioners are common and have been contested on common grounds, for the convenience sake, facts as are pleaded in respect of the writ petition No. 3813/2005, are being noticed herein for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised herein. 2. The case of the petitioners are that after their appointment under the respondent BCCL in the year 1981, they continued in service till the respondents terminated their services in the year 2003 by letter dated 22nd December 2003, on the ground that they had procured employment in lieu of their lands with the specific condition that they will hand over their lands for the use of the company for mining purposes, they have failed to fulfill their commitment and vacant possession of the lands were not handed over to the company which frustrated the very purpose of extending the benefit of employment to these petitioners against the said lands. Therefore, their services were terminated as the very foundation of employment and handing over dispute free workable physical possession of the land remained unfulfilled. As per the petitioners, the Management of the BCCL took a decision on 01st October 1980 for purchasing 51.93 acres of land required for Sendra Basjora Colliery for the purposes of quarrying, De-pillaring, sand stowing bunker, etc. The Management acquired the entire land of village Gareri and started mining operation over the land in question without any proper requisition and registration order. The Management thereafter gave employment to 32 persons in a package deal against 61.40 acres of land of the said village and provided one job each to the family whose land was acquired. Thus, these petitioners along with others were appointed in the year 1981 and by letter dated 20th May 1981, they were directed to report for mining training at vocational training centre which they successfully completed. Pursuant thereto, they were appointed and directed to report for duty under the respondents. 3. Petitioners' services were confirmed by the respondent BCCL and Service Books were opened in the year 1987 and service excerpts were also supplied to the individual petitioners which indicated that their initial appointment was made on 20th May 1981 and CMPF accounts were also opened. Pursuant thereto, they were appointed and directed to report for duty under the respondents. 3. Petitioners' services were confirmed by the respondent BCCL and Service Books were opened in the year 1987 and service excerpts were also supplied to the individual petitioners which indicated that their initial appointment was made on 20th May 1981 and CMPF accounts were also opened. Petitioners had been working since 1981 without any complaint till issuance of the order dated 22nd December 2003 which terminated the services of the petitioners on the aforesaid grounds. As it appears, while the services of 32 persons were terminated, only 19 persons moved before this Court challenging the order dated 22nd December 2003 in WPS No. 6145/2004 and WPS No. 6483/2004. The learned Single Judge on the said occasion, by judgment dated 4th February 2005, disposed of the writ petitions holding that the action taken by the company is fully justified and needs no interference. However, on the other hand, on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners that they will give specific details of their lands against which they/their father claimed and secured employment in the year 1981 and also gave workable physical possession of their lands to the satisfaction of the company, the company was directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of compliance of the order. 4. According to the petitioners, each of these petitioners furnished the details of the land acquired through their representation, one of which is annexure-7 to the WPS No. 3813/2005. Petitioners took the plea that appointment was given against the lands acquired by the Land Acquisition Department vide L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 and the Management had started mining work over the said land in the year 1981. Petitioner further stated in his representation that he did not have any concern with the land already acquired and nobody claimed any service before the Management against the said land, nor they have sold the land to anyone else. The Management has started the work upon the said land which is a matter of inquiry and inspection will make it clear that the land has been worked out and the Management has already raised coal from the petitioners' land. Petitioner enclosed a photocopy of the Award in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. The Management has started the work upon the said land which is a matter of inquiry and inspection will make it clear that the land has been worked out and the Management has already raised coal from the petitioners' land. Petitioner enclosed a photocopy of the Award in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. The respondent employer thereafter rejected the representation of the petitioner by an order dated 20th May 2005 (Annexure-8) on the ground that it did not reveal the share of the petitioner on total area of the land indicated therein and that since all the awardees have not given consent in its favour, appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Gima Mahto, father of the applicant against the land and houses and after his death, his wife Gangia Devi was in employment and after her death, applicant came into service. Petitioner's representation was rejected as he had not given workable physical possession of the land due to want of consent of other awardees of the land and existing houses. The withdrawal of the employment of the petitioner was therefore fully justified and legal. Similar such representations made by the individual petitioners herein in the respective writ petitions were also rejected by the respondents on more or less similar grounds. Petitioners therefore approached this Court against the individual orders of rejection of their representation, such as order dated 20th May 2005 in the case of the petitioner of WPS No. 3813/2005. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in support of their challenge to the impugned order, has made the following submissions: That the order of rejection of their representation in effect terminating their employment after 22 years of confirmed services without any disciplinary proceeding and finding of guilt, is bad in law. Even if, such an allegation of failing to provide workable physical possession of the land to the employer is made, the same could be in the nature of misconduct which ought to have been inquired through a departmental proceeding after giving due opportunity to the petitioners' in compliance of the principles of natural justice before their services were terminated. Even if, such an allegation of failing to provide workable physical possession of the land to the employer is made, the same could be in the nature of misconduct which ought to have been inquired through a departmental proceeding after giving due opportunity to the petitioners' in compliance of the principles of natural justice before their services were terminated. Allegations that workable physical possession of the land has not been provided by the individual petitioners in lieu whereof, they were given employment, is not factually correct as would be revealed from the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad upon orders of this Court passed on 22nd July 2011 in the present writ application itself. In respect of the petitioner in WPS No. 3813/2005, spot verification report has indicated that the land are in the possession of the BCCL. The said petitioner is not in possession of the land measuring 3.57 acres. In respect of petitioner of WPS No. 3812/2005, Deputy Commissioner's report dated 10th October 2011 evidences that the said petitioner is not in possession of the land in question. In respect of WPS No. 3815/2005, the said report evidences that out of the entire land i.e. 1.05 and ½ acres, only .05 decimal of land is in possession of the wife of late Sitaram Pramanik and the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the awardee. So far as the petitioner of WPS No. 3816/2005 is concerned, spot verification report has revealed that the petitioner, son of the awardee, is not in possession of the land. In respect of petitioner of WPS No. 3820/2005, the spot verification has shown that only 0.6 decimal of land is in the possession of this petitioner and the entire land is in the possession of the BCCL. The said petitioner is the son of the awardee. The petitioner of WPS No. 3831/2005 who is the daughter-in-law of the awardee, is not in possession of the land in question, as per the said report. In respect of petitioner in WPS No. 3881/2005 also, the report shows that he is not in possession of the land and he is the nephew of the awardee. So far as the petitioner in WPS No. 4196/2005 is concerned, she is the daughter-in-law of the awardee and is not in the possession of the land in question, rather the same is in the possession of the BCCL. So far as the petitioner in WPS No. 4196/2005 is concerned, she is the daughter-in-law of the awardee and is not in the possession of the land in question, rather the same is in the possession of the BCCL. The petitioner in WPS 4197/2005 is the son of the awardee and the spot verification report indicates that the land in question is not in possession of the said petitioner but under the BCCL. In respect of petitioner in WPS No. 4198/2005, said report also shows that the said petitioner is not in possession of the plots in question; rather they are under the possession of the BCCL. 6. Therefore, according to the petitioners, grounds of rejection are contrary to the records and plea taken by the respondents. It is further submitted that in the original order dated 22nd December 2003 which was challenged in the previous writ petition, a ground was taken that the workable physical possession of the land has not been given while in the order of rejection, impugned in the present writ petitions, a new ground has been added that consent of the awardees have not been given in favour of the petitioners which was not even a pre-condition for their appointment. It is submitted that the major portion of the land in question has been worked out for mining purposes by the BCCL and on some land, construction of quarters of employees of the company has also been made while some of the lands have remained parti or padhu lands. At the same time, on some of the lands, there are debris/quarry Khadan/pond. The entire land of Mouza Garari Thana 6 of circle Dhanbad, Khata No. 37, 8 and 9 and 1 was acquired under L.A. No. 30/85-86 and they are under workable physical possession of the BCCL and in record of rights, name of the BCCL have been recorded. BCCL has also filed suits under the CNT Act for creation of the record of rights in its favour. It is further submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents have also confirmed that the service book of the petitioner and Form-B Register were also prepared which are statutory documents under the Mines Act and have a legal and evidentiary value, so far as the question of appointment is concerned. It is further submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents have also confirmed that the service book of the petitioner and Form-B Register were also prepared which are statutory documents under the Mines Act and have a legal and evidentiary value, so far as the question of appointment is concerned. It is submitted that a perusal of Form-B Register which has been enclosed to the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent dated 6th March 2014 shows that they have been verified from the original records. Petitioners' have further challenged the plea of the respondents that there are no appointment letters of any of these petitioners or any contemporaneous document of 1981-82 to show that their appointments were validly made and that these petitioners have entered into service through legal method. It is submitted that adverse inference has to be drawn if relevant records relating to the decision making process of appointment have not been produced by the respondents in spite of direction of this Court. In support of the aforesaid submissions, a judgment in the case of H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India and others [ AIR 1986 SC 132 } has been relied upon. Further reliance has been placed upon judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Raghu Hajra vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors. [ 2013 (3) JBCJ 97 (HC)] to submit that the statutory Form B Register cannot be unilaterally changed in respect of the entries made thereunder, specifically in connection with the date of birth. Learned Senior counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey vs. The State of Bihar & others [ 2008(1) PLJR 841 ] in support of her contention that the termination of the services of the petitioners without following the procedure, as required under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, is bad in law. Further judgment rendered in the case of Karu Nonia vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. [2002 (1) J C R 418 (Jhr)] have also been relied. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that matters under challenge before this Court, specifically in relation to the rejection of the petitioners' representation on the grounds of non-furnishing of consent of coawardees, cannot be enlarged as the same are not the subject matter of the adjudication. [2002 (1) J C R 418 (Jhr)] have also been relied. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that matters under challenge before this Court, specifically in relation to the rejection of the petitioners' representation on the grounds of non-furnishing of consent of coawardees, cannot be enlarged as the same are not the subject matter of the adjudication. In support of the same, judgment rendered in the case of M. Purandara and others vs. Mahadesha S. and others [ (2005) 6 SCC 791 ] have also been relied by the learned Senior counsel. 7. Respondents are represented through learned counsel Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta. He prefaced his argument by drawing attention of this Court to the prayer made in the writ petitions where only a challenge has been made to the order dated 20th May 2005 rejecting the petitioners' representation and asking them to allow joining of the petitioners; petitioners have asked for stay of the order dated 22nd December 2003 (Annexure-5). However, the original order of termination of the services of the petitioners has not been challenged in this round of litigation. 8. All these petitioners were the writ petitioners in the earlier case i.e. WPS No. 6145/2005 and WPS No. 6483/2004. Some of the present petitioners are legal representatives of the original petitioners in the aforesaid two cases. Learned counsel has placed the judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition (Annexure-6) dated 4th February 2005 and submitted that the Hon'ble Court categorically held that the action of the company is fully justified and needs no interference. By the said judgment, the issue relating to the challenge of the order of termination dated 22nd December 2003 has attained finality as no appeal was preferred thereafter by the petitioners. The said order being final, petitioners are precluded from raising any ground to challenge the original order of their termination as it would be barred by res-judicata or constructive res-judicata. On the aforesaid issue, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgment: i. AIR 1961 SC 1457 para-19 [Daryao and others vs. State of U.P. and others] ii. 1977 (2) SCC 806 [State of U.P. vs. Nawab Hussain] iii. 1998 (4) SCC 361 para-11 to 14 (Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others) iv. On the aforesaid issue, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgment: i. AIR 1961 SC 1457 para-19 [Daryao and others vs. State of U.P. and others] ii. 1977 (2) SCC 806 [State of U.P. vs. Nawab Hussain] iii. 1998 (4) SCC 361 para-11 to 14 (Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others) iv. 2004(1) SCC 68 para-10 and 11 (Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. P. Kulothangan and another) 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners' representation such as Annexure-7 to the WPS No. 3813/2005 shows that only a notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, has been annexed and no copy of the sale deed, Khatiyan or rent receipts have been annexed thereto. On the representation, a simple chart has only been enclosed giving certain plot numbers having an area of 3.57 acres with remarks that they have been acquired. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that upon examination of the representation of the petitioners, it reveals that there was no disclosure of the share of the petitioners on the total area of the land indicated in the body of the representation. Land details and possessional status of the land were carefully scrutinized by the committee constituted for the said purpose. Petitioners in their representation, neither mentioned about acquisition of the said land, nor indicated the number of the Award or name of the awardees in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. On plot wise examination of the land, it was noticed that the land measuring 3.57 acres were the land acquired in L.A. No. 30/85-86 in Award Nos. 1, 79, 85 and 86 to 91, 9 and 10. The Award No. 1 was in the name of Harku Mahto but objection was filed by Khiru Mahto and Kashi Mahto before L.A. Judge. Therefore, payment was not released. Award No. 9 was declared in favour of Md. Sadik who was not even belonging to the community of the petitioners. Award No. 10 was declared in the name of Safruddin Ansari who was also not even belonging to the community of the petitioners. Rest of the Awards was declared in respect of the houses upon plot nos. 28, 29 and 30 in favour of Ashu Mahto and different persons. Award No. 10 was declared in the name of Safruddin Ansari who was also not even belonging to the community of the petitioners. Rest of the Awards was declared in respect of the houses upon plot nos. 28, 29 and 30 in favour of Ashu Mahto and different persons. He submitted that the scrutiny revealed that no consent by all the awardees were given in his favour and therefore, the appointment procured by the petitioner's father Gima Mahto was illegal and erroneous and therefore, petitioners' appointment were also illegal. Therefore, the Management conveyed its decision that the petitioner is not in a position to give workable physical possession of the land due to want of consent of other awardees of the land and existing houses. Therefore, withdrawal of the petitioner's appointment erroneously procured, was fully justified and legal. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after this Court rejected the challenge to the order of termination in earlier writ petition, petitioners are precluded from raising any plea such as compliance of principles of natural justice, requirement of a disciplinary proceeding, etc. now by laying the challenge to the impugned order of rejection of their representation and the same is barred by the principles of re-judicata or constructive res-judicata. Earlier issue having attained finality, this Court should not allow the petitioners to agitate such question relating to the legality of the order of termination on any such grounds. 10. The case of all the petitioners has been contested by the learned counsel for the BCCL on common grounds that the issues raised herein, are based upon the disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in a proceeding under the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that while the case of the petitioners is that they have delivered the workable physical possession of the land to the respondents, respondents have categorically denied the aforesaid statements which is supported by the findings of the committee which considered the petitioners' representation as per direction passed by this Court on 04th February 2005 in the earlier writ petitions. 11. Counsel for the respondents has placed the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad filed through the counter affidavit dated 18th October 2011 by the respondent State counsel. 11. Counsel for the respondents has placed the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad filed through the counter affidavit dated 18th October 2011 by the respondent State counsel. He has further placed the report annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 26th March 2014 filed on behalf of the respondent State on the basis of the documents contained in the land acquisition proceeding of 1985-86 under which such lands were acquired. It has been pointed out on his behalf that in respect of petitioner in WPS No. 3813/2005, both report says that he is not the son of the awardee, rather he is friend of the awardee. In respect of the petitioner in WPS No. 3812/2005, remarks have been made that he has no relation with the awardee. Similar remarks have been made in respect of the petitioner in WPS No. 4198/2005 that he has no relation with the awardee. At the same time, it is submitted that in the new report of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad which was prepared on the basis of a enquiry and inspection pursuant to the order passed earlier by this Court, there are no details except a single line statement in the case of individual petitioners that either the petitioners are not living on the plot or they are living in some of the cases. The instant report being thoroughly cryptic, has been seriously objected to by the respondent through their rejoinder filed on 6th January 2011 wherein they have also annexed the report prepared by the respondent BCCL on 31st December 2011 upon physical verification of the report prepared by the committee of the respondent BCCL. It raises serious dispute with regard to the possession of the land of the individual petitioners. The said report itself reveals that though, some of the lands are in the possession of the BCCL, but most of the lands are not in the possession of the BCCL. Therefore, the very issue relating to the legality and validity of the appointments procured by the individual petitioners in lieu of handing over of the workable physical possession of their lands, is based upon the disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in a proceeding under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the very issue relating to the legality and validity of the appointments procured by the individual petitioners in lieu of handing over of the workable physical possession of their lands, is based upon the disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in a proceeding under writ jurisdiction. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Union of India and others vs. Ghaus Mohammad [ AIR 1961 SC 1526 para-7 thereof] and in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others vs. Sukamni Das (SMT) and another [ 1999 (7) SCC 298 para 6 to 8 thereof]. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that apart from the above, this Court vide orders passed earlier in the present writ applications, made specific endeavours to inquire into the genuineness of the appointment of the petitioner by directing the respondents also to produce the appointment letters of the individual petitioners, records relating to the decision making process, if any, scheme and the record, if any, which contains the consent or no objection by the individual co-sharers sponsoring the cases of the appointees. It is submitted that in deference to the orders passed by this Court, respondent BCCL made serious efforts by constituting a committee to locate the documents relating to the original appointment of the petitioners. However, no such appointment letter has been found, neither any records are available in respect of the decision making process of appointment of petitioners who claim to have entered into service in the year 1981. However, if there are records like service excerpts, Form-B Register, etc, they are subsequent documents prepared in the year 1986-87 which in the absence of original documents, raises doubt about the genuineness of these appointment. In such circumstances, respondents have directed for institution of vigilance inquiry in the whole affair which is being inquired into at the present. Such vigilance inquiry may reveal the acts and omission of the concerned officers and employees of the respondent BCCL as also connivance of these petitioners in procuring appointment at the relevant point of time and continuing in service thereafter on the strength of that. Such vigilance inquiry may reveal the acts and omission of the concerned officers and employees of the respondent BCCL as also connivance of these petitioners in procuring appointment at the relevant point of time and continuing in service thereafter on the strength of that. Vigilance Department headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer appointed under the CVC Act of 2002 has been asked to inquire into the matter which has been referred to it on 24th June 2013. It is pointed out that some of the present petitioners like Raju Mahto and Karni Devi are legal heirs of the original employees / petitioners who had procured their appointment in similar manner. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that there were 32 persons who were appointed in similar and same manner and whose services were terminated in December 2003, out of which, only 10 persons have come forward in the present batch of writ applications to challenge the orders of rejection of their representation. It is submitted that strangely, individual petitioners claimed to have got employment as land looser in the year 1981, but lands in question itself have been acquired under the proceeding initiated in the year 1985-86 by the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad for the respondent company under special provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. In these circumstances, respondents counsel has forcefully submitted that no writ or mandamus should be issued when the entire edifice of the petitioners' case is based upon the disputed questions of fact. Learned counsel for the respondent BCCL submits that even if the appointment letters of individual petitioners may not be there with the respondents, but at least, petitioners could have produced their own appointment letters under which they claimed to have been appointed in the year 1981 on the ground that they had lost their lands. None of these petitioners have produced any such appointment letters which creates doubt about the genuineness of their whole appointment itself which rightly has been referred for vigilance inquiry. 13. None of these petitioners have produced any such appointment letters which creates doubt about the genuineness of their whole appointment itself which rightly has been referred for vigilance inquiry. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent State has made the submission that upon the orders passed by this Court earlier, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has conducted an inquiry with the help of the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad relating to the actual state of affairs in respect of the land acquired and submitted the report which has been filed through affidavit dated 18th October 2011. In further affidavit filed on 11th December 2013, it has also been indicated that the ownership certificate in respect of 46.55 acres of land in village Gararia, Jharia were handed over to the BCCL in the year 1993. It has been submitted that the land was acquired through L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 on behalf of the respondent State on 15th May 1993 and the same was handed over to the respondent BCCL through ownership certificate. Counsel for the respondent State submits that the details of the individual petitioners in the record of the land acquisition proceeding have also been furnished by way of a chart as Annexure-S-I-A to the affidavit dated 26th March 2014 which is self evident. 14. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, has reiterated the submission that the statutory records such as Form-B Register and also service excerpts of 1987 have been prepared on the basis of the original as indicated therein, confirming the services of the petitioners under the employment of the respondent BCCL for the period of 22 years since 1981. Respondents have chosen to terminate their employment on wholly unsustainable grounds that they procured their employment without handing over the actual workable physical possession of the land. She has relied upon Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 26th June 2014 filed by the respondent BCCL, as per which, the General Manager, BCCL, during course of the inquiry undertaken after the orders passed by this Court earlier, have taken note of the fact that employment to 30-40 persons as land looser would be given prospectively. That indicates that though, actual land acquisition may have taken place later on, the land looser whose lands were being used by the BCCL from 1980-81 onwards, were being given employment in lieu thereof. That indicates that though, actual land acquisition may have taken place later on, the land looser whose lands were being used by the BCCL from 1980-81 onwards, were being given employment in lieu thereof. It is submitted that reference has been made of a faded copy of the documents of 1981, however, such document has not been produced by the respondents which would create adverse inference against them. It is further submitted that the grounds of re-judicata are not made out in the present writ applications as the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in the earlier writ petition did not finally determine the issue. Learned Single Judge after giving opinion that the action of the respondents was fully justified, permitted the petitioners to place the details of the lands which were handed over to the respondents in lieu of their employment and thereupon the respondents were directed to take a decision on the petitioners' claim. Therefore, the earlier writ petition cannot be said to have finally determined the issue and neither the said writ petition was dismissed, rather disposed of. Petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baij Nath Sharma vs. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur and another [ 1998 (7) SCC 44 para-5 thereof] in support of their aforesaid contention that when the representation has been directed to be disposed of, its rejection cannot be said to have acted as a bar on the grounds of re-judicata for the petitioners in filing a fresh writ petition. Reliance has also been made upon a judgment in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others vs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy [ (1970) 1 SCC 613 ] that on pure question of law which is being raised by the petitioners in respect of illegal termination of their appointment, the same cannot be said to be barred on the principles of res-judicata. The order impugned raises a different cause of action to the petitioners which cannot be hit by re-judicata. 14A. The order impugned raises a different cause of action to the petitioners which cannot be hit by re-judicata. 14A. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners reiterated her submissions made on the point of assailing the new ground of rejecting their representation that the petitioners had not submitted the consent of the co-awardees while procuring employment, though in the original order of termination, the only ground was taken that the actual workable physical possession of the lands were not handed over to the respondent BCCL by the concerned petitioners. It is up to the respondent BCCL to take steps in accordance with law to remove any such encroachment upon such lands which have been acquired and in respect of which, ownership certificate has also been handed over to them by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1993 itself. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to earlier orders dated 11th February 2009 that would indicate that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition did not amount to final adjudication on the issue. Thereafter, several orders have been passed in the present writ applications including order no. 8 dated 27th July 2011 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was directed to conduct and hold inquiry. Therefore, the matter cannot be said to have attained finality in view of the earlier judgment and not barred by res-judicata or constructive res-judicata. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the question herein is confined to the grounds on which services of the petitioners has been terminated by the respondents and the issue which are not before this Court, cannot be enlarged in the scope of the writ proceeding. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Purandara and others vs. Mahadesha S. and others [ (2005) 6 SCC 791 ]. Lastly, it has been submitted on their behalf that there is no justification for the respondents to terminate the petitioners' services after 22 years without any disciplinary inquiry leading to proof of charge of misconduct. It has been submitted that Respondent employer may be entitled to undertake the vigilance inquiry for finding out acts or omission, if documents relating to the appointment of the petitioners have been destroyed or not found in their office. It has been submitted that Respondent employer may be entitled to undertake the vigilance inquiry for finding out acts or omission, if documents relating to the appointment of the petitioners have been destroyed or not found in their office. However, legality and validity of the petitioners' appointment cannot be questioned on the part of the respondents. These writ petitioners being out of service since 2003 have therefore sought for a direction to quash the impugned order and direct the respondents to allow them to join their services. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record, the first question which needs to be dealt with is in relation to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of res-judicata and constructive res-judicata. In WPS Nos. 6145/2004 and 6483/2004, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 04th February 2005 (Annexure-6), upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, came to the definite conclusion that the action taken by the company is fully justified and needs no interference, as in the opinion of the Court, petitioners were bound by the commitment made with the company by their fathers under which they got employment. The appointment of the petitioners was terminated on the ground that they had procured employment in lieu of their lands with specific conditions that they will hand over the land for use of the company for mining purposes, but they failed to fulfill their commitment. However, the learned Single Judge thereafter allowed the petitioners to give specific details of their lands against which they/their fathers got employment in the year 1981 and hand over the workable physical possession of the lands within two months from the date of the judgment (if not already given to the satisfaction of the company). Upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions, company was directed to take a decision on the recommendation of the committee thereafter without any delay. On the face of it therefore, it appears that while the learned Court did not find any reason to interfere with the orders of termination, but it left the issue relating to the handing over possession of the lands to the petitioners to be once again established by giving specific details, whereupon, the respondent company was also directed to take a decision upon the recommendation of the committee. 16. 16. The petitioners though did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment, but they preferred representation giving details of their lands said to have been acquired and which they claim to have handed over the workable possession thereof. On the earlier occasion, though the petitioners had also raised the plea that the orders of termination were passed without issuing notices and without a departmental proceeding, the learned Court, upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, had clearly observed that the action taken by the company was justified and needed no interference. It is therefore clear that the learned Single Judge left the only issue to be further examined in relation to the specific details of the lands under which petitioners got employment and also handed over workable possession of their lands. Upon petitioners representation, the issue was examined by the committee upon whose recommendation, orders of rejection (impugned) have been passed on the grounds that the awardees had not given consent in favour of the individual petitioners or their fathers and therefore, appointment was erroneously and illegally procured. The plea of res-judicata was also raised earlier on behalf of the respondents in the present writ application as reflected in the order dated 11th December 2009. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge who had delivered the judgment dated 04th February 2005 in the petitioners’ case earlier. From perusal of the order passed thereafter on 22nd July 2011, it appears that on the question of handing over the possession of the lands by the awardees to the BCCL, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was requested to hold an inquiry with the help of Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, Circle Officer of the concerned area and the Estate Officer, Sijua Area, BCCL, Dhanbad in presence of the petitioners or their representative regarding the actual state of affairs with respect to the said land measuring 61.04 acres including 46.55 acres of land acquired by the BCCL by private negotiation regarding L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 in Mouza Gareria. Thereafter, the matter was inquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and a report has also been submitted, as has been referred to by the rival parties earlier. Thereafter, the matter was inquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and a report has also been submitted, as has been referred to by the rival parties earlier. It is therefore evident that though, the learned Single Judge on the previous occasion had held that the action of the company was fully justified and needed no interference, but the controversy did not die thereafter, in view of the specific observations made in the same judgment. Subsequent orders passed in the present case earlier also indicated that the question relating to the termination of the petitioners’ service have been further inquired into. On a cumulative appreciation of the aforesaid background of fact, this Court would be loath to accept the plea of the respondents that the issue of termination of the petitioners’ services has attained finality and is hit by the grounds of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata. The plea of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata as culled out by the judgment relied upon by the rival parties, is based upon the principle of two legal maxims i.e. (i) Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium -it is in the interest of the public that there should be finality to the litigation and (ii) 'Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa' – no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause of action. This principle based upon the aforesaid maxims should be understood and applied to a case when the same question which had already been judicially decided, have once again been raised between the same parties. In such a case, if the matter in dispute decided by the former judgment is conclusive between the same parties, attempts to reopen that matter has to be repelled. In such a case, if the matter in dispute decided by the former judgment is conclusive between the same parties, attempts to reopen that matter has to be repelled. The principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case of Daryao and others vs. State of U.P. and others [ AIR 1961 SC 1457 para-19], State of U.P. vs. Nawab Hussain [ 1977 (2) SCC 806 ], Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 1998 (4) SCC 361 para-11 to 14 and Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. P. Kulothangan and another 2004(1) SCC 68 para-10 and 11 thereof] on the question of res-judicata and constructive res-judicata when applied in the aforesaid state of facts of the present case, does not persuade the Court to reach to the conclusion that the issue has attained finality by the earlier judgment. This Court therefore instead of shutting out the petitioners on the ground of res-judicata or constructive re-judicata, would prefer to adopt a safer course of deciding the issue on merits. 17. During the proceedings of the instant writ petitions, this Court was confronted with two distinct aspect of the matters which required to be examined to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners were entitled to relief prayed for or not? The first issue which emerges out of the foundational facts arising out of the termination of the petitioners’ services and the litigations in the two round of writ petitions is on the question as to whether these petitioners had really procured employment in lieu of the lands lost by them or their fathers in the year 1980-81? The second aspect which emerges out as a natural corollary upon examination of the first issue is as to whether petitioners had been validly and legally appointed at the relevant point of time in the year 1981 by the respondents or their original appointment itself lacks sanctity. If the entire substratum of their claim for having continued in employment since 1981 was not based upon any legal and valid appointment, the entire structure built upon it on the basis that they had continued for twenty two years in service thereafter, would crumble. 18. If the entire substratum of their claim for having continued in employment since 1981 was not based upon any legal and valid appointment, the entire structure built upon it on the basis that they had continued for twenty two years in service thereafter, would crumble. 18. Addressing oneself to the first aspect of the matter, the attendant material facts are to be examined to come to a conclusion as to whether petitioners had handed over the workable possession of the lands to the company in lieu of which they got their employment. This was the issue which was left to be examined after the learned Single Judge of this Court in the previous round of litigation, did not find any reason to interfere in the action of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioners. Representations of each of the petitioners were supported by document which was in the nature of notice under the Land Acquisition Act, as in the case of WPS No. 3818/2005 under section 12(2) of the said Act. The committee constituted by the respondent examined the representations of each of these petitioners and came to a definite finding which has been reflected in the impugned orders. In WPS No. 3813/2005, the Committee found that the petitioners in their representation neither mentioned about the details of their land acquired, nor indicated the number of the award or name of the awardees in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. On plot wise examination of the land, it was noticed that the land measuring 3.57 acres land were the land acquired in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86, in Award Nos. 1, 79, 85,86 to 91, 9 and 10; Award no. 1 was in the name of Harku Mahto, but objection was filed by one Khiru Mahto before the L.A. Judge and their payments were not released; Award no. 9 was declared in favour of Md. Sadik who was not even belonging to the community of the petitioners; Award No. 10 was declared in favour of Md. Safruuddin Ansari who was also not belonging to the community of the petitioners; rest of the Awards were declared in respect of houses upon plot nos. 28, 29 and 30 in favour of Ashu Mahto and different persons. Sadik who was not even belonging to the community of the petitioners; Award No. 10 was declared in favour of Md. Safruuddin Ansari who was also not belonging to the community of the petitioners; rest of the Awards were declared in respect of houses upon plot nos. 28, 29 and 30 in favour of Ashu Mahto and different persons. The inquiry report revealed that though, awards were in respect of different persons, but no consent by all the awardees were given in the favour of the petitioners and therefore, appointment procured by the petitioners’ fathers was illegal and erroneous and obtained through dubious means on the pretext of handing over possession of the lands and houses. Similar findings of the committee in respect of each of the petitioners' representations as contained in the impugned order of rejection are being furnished herein-below in the form of chart: Case No. Findings of the Committee Relevant Annexure WPS 3813/05 Sri Mahato, in respect of the land in his representation neither projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86, nor indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plowise examination of the land it is noticed that land measuring are 3.57 acre land acquired in LA case No. 30/85-86 in award No. 1,79,85,86 to 91, 9 & 10. Award No. 1 awarded in the name of Harku Mahto but objection filed by Khiru Mahato and Kashi Mahato before L.A. Judge. Payment not released. Award no. 9 declared in favour of Md. Sadik. Award No. 10 also declared in the name of Sarfuddin Ansari. Rest award are declared in respect of houses upon plot No. 28, 29 & 30 in favour of Sri Ashu Mahato & different persons. Since all Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Gima Mahato, the Father of the applicant against the related land and house, after the death of Gima Mahato his wife Gangia Mahatain was in employment, after her death the applicant in service. Since all Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Gima Mahato, the Father of the applicant against the related land and house, after the death of Gima Mahato his wife Gangia Mahatain was in employment, after her death the applicant in service. Annexure-8 WPS 3812/05 On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that in Plot No. 238, 27 and others measuring area 0.715 acre land acquired in LA case No. 30/85-86 in award No. 41 previously awarded in the names of Sri Jadu Mahato and others later on awarded in the name of Srimoti Janki Devi in a L.A. Reference case no. 23/99, there are houses upon plot No. 671 and 672 awarded in the names of Pir Mohammad, Mahadeo Singh & others in award no. 189 & 190 respectively. Besides award No. 59 and 60 in respect of plot No. 671 measuring area 0.26 acres has been awarded in the names of Ismail Ansari & others, Khaitoon Bibi. Since all Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Saw against the related land and house. Annexure-8 WPS 3815/05 Sri Paramanik in respect of the land in his representation neither project about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 nor indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that in Plot No. 614, 647, 648 land acquired in LA case No. 30/85-86 in award No. 52 and plot no. 615 acquired under award No. 42 & 52, plot No. 228 acquired No. 38. Award No. 52 is awarded in the names of Manshu napit, Mahabir Napit and Panchu Napit. There is houses upon plot No. 648 awarded in award no. 155 to 157. Other plots have been in use and occupation of ex-colliery owner and vested to M/s BCCL by virtue of coal mines Nationalization Act. The applicant's father Manshu Napit is a co-Awardee in respect of award no. 52 only prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. Since other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Sita Ram Paramanik against the related land and house. The applicant's father Manshu Napit is a co-Awardee in respect of award no. 52 only prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. Since other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Sita Ram Paramanik against the related land and house. Annexure-8 WPS 3816/05 Sri Mahato in respect of the land under item No. 1, 3 and 4 projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 but not indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that Plot no. 202 out of Serial No. 1 and Plots under serial No. 2 and 3 are in respect of award no. 6 prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 and the said award has been prepared in the name of a good number of persons like Jugal Mahato, Fakir Mahto, Thakur Mahato, and they have withdrew the awarded amount. Plot No. 204 is under award no. 35 prepared in the name of Lilu Mahato & others. Concerned Jyoti Lal Mahato is neither an awardee of the acquired land nor nominated by the awardees of the land oustees for giving of employment to him in respect of land against award No. 6 & 31. And Ram Kishun Mahato, father of the petitioner is only a co-Awardee in award No. 35 & 49. Other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment has erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Mahato against the related land. Further on spot verification by the constituted committee, it is noticed that there are construction upon the related land under plot no. 650 and 661. The houses in award no. 158 to 167 and 173 are yet to be vacated. Annexure-8 WPS 3820/05 Sri Mahato, in respect of the land in his representation neither projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 nor indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that in Plot no. 36 to 39, 61 to 63, 65 to 69, 71, 72, 74, 94, 95, 265, 660 measuring area 1.84 acre acquired in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 in award no. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that in Plot no. 36 to 39, 61 to 63, 65 to 69, 71, 72, 74, 94, 95, 265, 660 measuring area 1.84 acre acquired in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 in award no. 11, 12, 13, 21, 22 and 24 in the names of Sri Ram Prasad Mahato and fifteen other, Tilak Prasad Mahato and mother of Jitu Mahato. There is houses upon plot No. 37, 38, 39, 71 and 72 awarded in the names of Megha Mahato and others persons. Some other plots have been in use and occupation of ex-colliery owenr and vested to M/s BCCL by virtue of coal mines Nationalization Act. The applicant's mother is a co=Awardee in respect of award no. 22 & 24 only prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. Since other Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Jitu against the related land and house. Annexure-8 WPS 3831/05 Sri Mahato in respect of the land under item No. 1, 3 and 4 projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 but not indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that Plot No. 202 out of Serial No. 1 and Plots under serial No. 2 and 3 are in respect of award no. 6 prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 and the said award has been prepared in the name of a good numbers of persons like Jugal Mahato, Fakir Mahato, Tahkur Mahato and they have withdrew the awarded amount. Plot No. 204 is under award no. 35 prepared in the name of Lilu Mahato & others. Concerned Bhola Mahato is neither an awardee of the acquired land nor nominated by the awardees or the land oustee for giving employment to him in respect of land against award No. 6 & 49. Therefore it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Bhola Mahato against the related land. Further on spot verification by the constituted committee, it is noticed that there are construction of others upon the related land under Plot No. 656 and 661. Annexure-8 WPS 4196/05 Sri Mahto, in respect of the land under item no. Therefore it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Bhola Mahato against the related land. Further on spot verification by the constituted committee, it is noticed that there are construction of others upon the related land under Plot No. 656 and 661. Annexure-8 WPS 4196/05 Sri Mahto, in respect of the land under item no. 1, 3 and 4 projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 but not indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that Plot No. 202 out of Serial no. 1 and Plots under serial No. 2 and 3 are in respect of award no. 6 prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 and the said award has been prepared in the name of a good number of persons like Jugal Mahto, Fakir Mahto, Thakur Mahto and they have withdrew the award amount. Plot No. 204 is under award no. 35 prepared in the name of Lilu Mahto & others. Concerned Deo Kumar Mahto is neither an awardee of the acquired land nor nominated by the awardees of the land oustees for giving of employment to him in respect of land against award No. 6 & 31. And Teju Mahto, father of the petitioner is only co-Awardee in award no. 35 & 49. Other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Deo Kumar Mahto against the related land. Further on spot verification by the constituted committee, it is noticed that there are construction of others upon the related land under plot no. 656 and 661. The houses in award no. 158 to 167 and 173 to 176 are yet to be vacated. Annexure-8 WPS 4197/05 Sri Mahto, in respect of the land under item no. 1, 3 and 4 neither projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 nor indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that in Plot No. 20 and eleven others area 1.36 acre in land acquired in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 in award No. 07 declared in the names of Hira Mahato, Kishun Mahato, Parmeshwar Mahato and Bira Mahato. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that in Plot No. 20 and eleven others area 1.36 acre in land acquired in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 in award No. 07 declared in the names of Hira Mahato, Kishun Mahato, Parmeshwar Mahato and Bira Mahato. Some other plots have been in use and occupation of ex-colliery owner and vested to M/s BCCL by virtue of coal mines Nationalization Act. The applicant's father Hira Mahato is a co-Awardee in respect of award no. 07 only prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. Since other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Binod Mahato against the related land and house. Annexure-8 WPS 4198/05 Sri Mahato, in respect of the land under item No. 1, 3 and 4 projected about acquisition of said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 but not indicated the number of award or name of the awadees. On plotwise examination of the land it is noticed that Plot No. 202 out of Serial No. 1 and Plots under serial No. 2 and 3 are in respect of award no. 6 prepared in L.A. Case no. 30/85-86 and the said award has been prepared in the name of a good numbers of persons like Jugal Mahato, Fakir Mahato, Thakur Mahato, and they have withdrew the awarded amount. Plot No. 204 is under award no. 35 prepared in the name of Lilu Mahato. Concerned Raju Mahato is neither an awardee of the acquired land nor nominated by the awardees on the land oustees for giving of employment to him in respect of land against award No. 6 & 31. Ad Madhusudan Mahato, father of the petitioner is only a co-Awardee in award No. 35 & 49. Other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Madhusudan Mahato against the related land. After his death, Raju Mahato got employment as a dependent. Further on spot verification by the constituted committee, it is noticed that there are construction upon the related land under Plot No. 656 and 661. The houses in award no. 158 to 167 and 173 to 176 are yet to be vacated. After his death, Raju Mahato got employment as a dependent. Further on spot verification by the constituted committee, it is noticed that there are construction upon the related land under Plot No. 656 and 661. The houses in award no. 158 to 167 and 173 to 176 are yet to be vacated. Annexure-8 WPS 3881/05 Sri Napit, in respect of the land neither projected about acquisition of the said land in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 nor indicated the number of award or name of the awardees. On plot wise examination of the land it is noticed that Plot No. 107 & 108 measuring 0.17 acres have been in use and occupation of ex-colliery owner and vested to M/s BCCL by virtue of coal mines Nationalization Act. And plot no. 614, 647 and 615 acquired in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 under award no. 52 in the names of Sri Mansu Napit, Sri Mahabir Napit and Sri Govind Napit. Besides 50% share in plot No. 615, area 0.055 acre awarded in the name of Lakhi Napitain under award no. 42. The applicant is a co-Awardee in respect of award no. 52 prepared in L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 and award Nos. 155 to 157 have been declared in respect of houses standing over plot no. 648 in the names of different persons. Since other co-Awardees have not given consent in his favour. Therefore, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Napit against the related land. Accordingly, it is established that Sri Govind Napit had procured employment against the related land by dubious means on the pretext of handing over of possession of the land and house. Hence, his representation is devoid of any merit. Annexure-8 A perusal of these findings recorded by the Committee indicates that (i) the acquired land did not entirely belong to the petitioners or their fathers and in many cases, awards were also in the name of persons of different community; (ii) the consent of the co-awardees was also not furnished to show that the rest of the awardees did not have any objection to the employment of the concerned petitioners. It is relevant to state here that the employment in lieu of loss of lands are given under the respondent coal company as per the prevalent rehabilitation scheme or agreement entered into with the land loosers against a particular area of lands i.e. two acres in some cases and/or in some cases, even more than that. In any case, during the proceedings of the case, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on being directed, submitted his report at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad filed on 18th October 2011 in WPS No. 3813/05. Perusal of the report indicates that against the name of individual petitioner, several plot numbers have been indicated having different area and totalling different acreage recording in the remarks column as follows: in WPS No. 3813/05, 'does not reside; the petitioner is the son of the friend of the awardee; in WPS No. 3812/05, same remarks, he does not reside and that the awardee is related to the purchaser; in WPS No. 3815/05, petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the awardee and existence of certain houses on plot no. 646, 647 and 648 have been found; in respect of another plot, it appears that it is not in the name of the awardee and there are houses over the same; WPS No. 3816/05, award is shown in the name of several persons with the remarks that the petitioner is the son of the awardee and does not reside there; in WPS No. 3820/05, again, award is shown in the name of different person with remark that the petitioner is living there; in respect of plot no. 37, similar remarks have been made against the name of other petitioners, though in each of the individual cases, there are number of plots shown as also number of awardees in respect of each of the plots. 19. The instant inspection report has been seriously disputed by the respondent who have filed rejoinder to the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on 6th January 2012 which is annexure-R/A. It contains the report on spot verification of the land made by the official of the respondent company which again shows several plot numbers against each name of the individual petitioners having different areas and names of different occupants. Some of the plots are shown in the possession of the BCCL while many of such plots are not in the possession of the BCCL. During course of the proceedings of the case, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad was also directed to file an affidavit on the verification of the records relating to the land acquisition proceeding of Mouza Gareri, District Dhanbad. The report filed thereafter which is at annexure-SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 8th July 2013 filed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad is also in the same manner as report of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad with similar description. Proceedings in the L.A. Case No. 30/85-86 have also been annexed which again show the details of the land of several persons who were also not the petitioners in the total area of land acquired. A comparison of the findings contained in the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, the BCCL and the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad shows that there are disputed question of facts involved relating to the claim of individual petitioners. While appointments have been shown to be procured against a particular area of land, but the acquired land under the awards, neither belong to the petitioners nor their fathers alone, nor any consent of other coawardees were produced and there are also serious dispute about the actual physical possession of the land by the BCCL which were acquired. A comparative analysis of the findings in different reports on being compared with the findings of the committee which forms the basis of rejection of individual representation of the petitioners shows that there are serious dispute relating to the claim of the petitioners of having handed over the actual workable physical possession of the land to the respondent company in lieu of which employment was obtained. Counsel for the respondent BCCL is therefore right in his submission that determination of such issues, based upon disputed questions of fact, cannot be arrived at in the writ proceedings before this Court. 20. This Court during the proceedings of the instant case, found that there are no appointment letter of the original appointees who claim to have been appointed sometime in the year 1981. 20. This Court during the proceedings of the instant case, found that there are no appointment letter of the original appointees who claim to have been appointed sometime in the year 1981. There are one or two appointment letter in respect of compassionate appointment of one or the other petitioners which were obtained after the death of the original appointee or his wife, such as in the case of Chinta Devi (WPS No. 4196/05) and Raju Mahto (WPS 4198/05) which are Annexures-C & D respectively to the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.03.2014. In such circumstances, this Court therefore on 23rd January 2014 observed that the original appointment letter, the relevant records which related to the sanction or decision making process of appointment of the individual petitioners, the scheme and records, if any, which contained the consent or no objection by the individual co-sharer sponsoring the cases of the petitioners/appointee appear to be necessary and material for examining the issues raised herein. The respondent BCCL was directed to make available the relevant records to the learned counsel Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta for furnishing the details in respect of individual petitioners/appointees. The respondent BCCL constituted a committee to inquire into the matter. 21. The respondent thereafter through its supplementary counter affidavit filed on 26th March 2014 stated that no appointment letter of original appointees could be traced, though two appointment letters of subsequent appointment made on compassionate ground upon the death of the original employees were found with the Director (Pesonnel), BCCL. He has thereafter filed an affidavit on 26th June 2014 stating that he has minutely examined the entire matter and has found prima facie illegality/irregularity committed at different stages in the matter related to employment in lieu of lands of Mouza Garerai under Sendra Basjora Colliery of BCCL. Therefore, he has recommended for taking necessary action against the erring officers and employees who had fradulently entered into employment of Sendra Bansjora Colliery. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director has also passed necessary orders referring the matter to the Vigilance Department for inquiry. The Vigilance Department of BCCL is headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer appointed under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The matter has been referred to the C.V.O., Dhanbad for necessary action through reference no. 181/F(IR/L) dated 24/24.06.2014 which is annexure-B to the said affidavit. Respondents have sought time to place the findings of the vigilance inquiry before this Court. The Vigilance Department of BCCL is headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer appointed under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The matter has been referred to the C.V.O., Dhanbad for necessary action through reference no. 181/F(IR/L) dated 24/24.06.2014 which is annexure-B to the said affidavit. Respondents have sought time to place the findings of the vigilance inquiry before this Court. In these circumstances, respondent BCCL is directed to conclude the vigilance inquiry initiated as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Dependent upon the findings in the vigilance enquiry, further action be taken in accordance with law. 22. The entire gamut of facts as found in relation to the aforesaid case therefore also gives serious doubt relating to the legality and validity of the appointment of these petitioners or their fathers in the year 1981. The aforesaid observations therefore answers the second question framed by the Court relating to the very question of legality and validity of original appointment, claimed to have been procured in lieu of handing over the workable physical possession of the land acquired. Another very interesting aspect which needs to be indicated herein is that while the petitioners' claim to have been appointed in lieu of their lands lost for mining purposes to the respondent company in the year 1981, but the land acquisition proceeding in respect of the said village Gareri for the purposes of Sendra Basjora Colliery were initiated under the L.A. Case No. 30/85-86. It was for this reason, this Court made endeavours to find out as to what transpired at that time in the year 1981 when the petitioners claimed to have been appointed under the respondents; what was the scheme prevalent at the relevant point of time; the decision making process relating to their appointment and whether there was any proof of any consent or no objection by the individual co-sharers sponsoring the cases of the petitioners / appointees. Surprisingly, no such records are available with the respondent BCCL. The matter has therefore been referred to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Dhanbad by the respondent BCCL as it raises grave suspicion in the whole affairs of appointments made at the relevant point of time. Surprisingly, no such records are available with the respondent BCCL. The matter has therefore been referred to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Dhanbad by the respondent BCCL as it raises grave suspicion in the whole affairs of appointments made at the relevant point of time. In this regard, it is to be observed that if the entire substratum of the case of the petitioners based upon their original appointment in the year 1981 crumbles, then no lawful consequence would flow even though, petitioners may have continued in service for twenty two years thereafter and even if their services were confirmed and service records were prepared thereafter. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 ] para-25 thereof is quoted here-under: “25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus — a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation.” 23. In the aforesaid state of disputed questions of fact, in respect of both the issues examined by this Court, on merits, after repelling the plea of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata raised by the respondents, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that in a proceeding under the writ jurisdiction, it would not be proper to make any determination thereupon and/or issue any writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of rejection impugned in the individual cases and/or to reinstate them in service. Petitioners however may have the liberty to raise their grievances before the appropriate forum including the Industrial Tribunal where such disputed questions of fact can be determined. It is also made clear that if the petitioners do so, the concerned Court or the Forum would arrive at adjudication without being influenced by the observations made in the present case. Petitioners however may have the liberty to raise their grievances before the appropriate forum including the Industrial Tribunal where such disputed questions of fact can be determined. It is also made clear that if the petitioners do so, the concerned Court or the Forum would arrive at adjudication without being influenced by the observations made in the present case. The plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that adverse inference may be drawn against respondents for failure to produce the appointment letter of the petitioners and other relevant records, will not improve the case of the petitioners in the aforesaid state of facts when this Court has found that the petitioners themselves have failed to produce even the original appointment letter under which they claimed to have been appointed in the year 1981. Moreover, there are disputed questions of fact involved on the very issue relating to the handing over of the workable physical possession of the lands in favour of the respondents in lieu of which, such employment was obtained by individual petitioners in the year 1981. 24. The ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of M. Purandara and others (supra) that the issue in the subject matter of challenge, cannot be enlarged in a proceeding before this Court, do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, as has been found, the writ petitioner had not questioned the selection of the persons who were affected by the High Court’s impugned order. They were not applicants before the Tribunal. In such a factual scenario, it was held that the subject matter of adjudication before the High Court could not have been enlarged by the High Court at the instance of the writ petitioner. The elaborate recital of the facts of the present case show that the petitioners had assailed their termination from service on the grounds that after 22 years of engagement since 1981, the same was not proper in the absence of finding of misconduct in a duly constituted departmental proceedings against them. The elaborate recital of the facts of the present case show that the petitioners had assailed their termination from service on the grounds that after 22 years of engagement since 1981, the same was not proper in the absence of finding of misconduct in a duly constituted departmental proceedings against them. On consideration of the entire gamut of facts involved, it has been found that not only the claim of the petitioners that they had got employment in lieu of handing over the workable physical possession of the land lost by them, are based upon the disputed questions of fact, but the very genesis of the appointment has been found to be questionable as neither the petitioners have been able to show any appointment letter or documents which form the basis of their appointment in the year 1981, nor there are any contemporaneous record in relation to the appointment of the petitioners in the office of the respondents. Therefore, the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners in respect of their termination, have been found to be based upon the disputed questions of fact upon which, no writ or direction can be issued in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. In the case of Ram Krishna Dubey (Supra), the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the termination of an employee who had been appointed on temporary basis and had been permanently absorbed, could not have been done without following the procedure laid down under the rules for removal of permanent employees and in accordance with the procedure conceived under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the said case, the learned Division Bench had found that no misconduct or fraud was alleged to have been committed on the part of the incumbent anywhere. Facts of the present case are therefore distinguishable. As already observed herein, not only the question relating to their employment based upon handing over the workable physical possession of the land in the year 1981 is based upon the disputed questions of fact, but neither is there any appointment letters produced by the petitioners or any official record pertaining to the same. In fact, the whole issue of original appointment of the petitioners has been referred to the vigilance inquiry by the respondents as taken note of in the earlier part of the judgment. In fact, the whole issue of original appointment of the petitioners has been referred to the vigilance inquiry by the respondents as taken note of in the earlier part of the judgment. Reliance of the petitioners upon the aforesaid judgment as also other judgments on the same issue, is therefore misconceived. 26. In view of the cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and principles of law, referred to herein-above, writ petitions therefore have to fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order, however as to cost.