JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - As common question is involved in all these writ petitions, they have been taken up together and are decided by this common order. 2. Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for appointment as per the final result published by Memo No. 1619/RIMS, Ranchi dated 07.03.2017, issued by the Director, RIMS. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post which are not occupied by the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. 3. The fact of the case, as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that an Advertisement No. 8576, dated 09.07.2016 was published by RIMS, Ranchi inviting applications with complete Biodata for filling up the posts of Tutor in different Department of RIMS. The petitioners applied for the post of Teachers in respective disciplines. Thereafter, interview letters were issued to them and after being found successful in all respects, final result was published on 07.03.2016. However, it has been mentioned in the result that the appointment letter to the selected candidates in different disciplines like Anatomy, Physiology, Bio-chemistry, Micro-Biology and Pharmacology will be issued after outcome of W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 filed by Dr. Rekha Sharma and Others. Since appointment letters were not issued to the selected candidates, an Intervention Application was filed by Dr. Anita Kumari and Dr. Manju Boipai in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015, which was allowed and thereafter, W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 was also finally disposed of by judgment dated 06.12.2017. It was clearly held in the said W.P.(S) no. 2274 of 2015 that the interveners therein had been selected as per the procedures laid down in the advertisement and no illegality or infirmity was pointed out by anyone whatsoever in their appointments and as such, the respondents were duty bound to appoint the interveners if they fulfil other conditions. 4. It is further averred in the writ petition that when relief was not granted to the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015, they preferred L.P.A. no. 615 of 2017 and the Hon''ble Division Bench, vide its order dated 16.01.2018 stayed operation and implementation of judgment dated 06.12.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. 4. It is further averred in the writ petition that when relief was not granted to the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015, they preferred L.P.A. no. 615 of 2017 and the Hon''ble Division Bench, vide its order dated 16.01.2018 stayed operation and implementation of judgment dated 06.12.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. Since the interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 again were aggrieved by the said interim order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017, they preferred Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. (C) No. 1533 of 2018 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by order dated 20.03.2018 with an observation that they may move an application seeking to vacate the interim order. Thereafter, Dr. Anita Kumari and another filed I.A. No. 316 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 which was allowed and the interim order dated 16.01.2018 was modified to the extent that the stay granted shall not be made applicable to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 [interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015] with a further observation that the appointment will be made in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment delivered in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. It is case of the petitioners that they are similarly situated like Dr. Anita Kumari and Manju Boipai [Interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015] and as such, similar benefits may be granted to them also. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this Court has considered the similar set of facts in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. Para-11 of the said judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 is relevant while deciding case of the present petitioners. "11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to pass order on pending representation of the petitioners in accordance with law keeping into consideration that the petitioners have completed the terms of their tenure of three years, though extension has been given to them. I further direct that since the petitioners have been duly qualified for the post, they be given appointment letters if they otherwise fulfill the conditions as laid down in advertisement. I further direct that since the petitioners have been duly qualified for the post, they be given appointment letters if they otherwise fulfill the conditions as laid down in advertisement. As this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the appointment of interveners, no case is made out for any interference and they deserves to be appointed. However, the respondents are directed to pass reasoned order in accordance with law on pending representation of the petitioners. The entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ presentation of a copy of this order." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 was challenged before the Division Bench and further refers the order dated 16.01.2018, passed in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017, the relevant portion thereof reads as under: "... ... .. 4. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred for getting stay against the operation, implementation and execution of order, dated 6th December, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. 5. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that these appellants are original petitioners, who are working since the year 2007 - 08 as Tutors in Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Ranchi, popularly known as RIMS, Ranchi It further appears from the facts of the case that as per RIMS Regulation of 2014, Tutor is a tenure post. The said Regulation is applicable from the year 2014, whereas, these appellants are employed from 2007 - 08. They were appointed in pursuance of public advertisement and selection process prevailing at the relevant time was also followed and they have been continued on the post of Tutor since 2007 - 08. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of these appellants. Balance of convenience is also in favour of these appellants and if the stay is not given, irreparable loss is going to be caused to these appellants. 6. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of these appellants. Balance of convenience is also in favour of these appellants and if the stay is not given, irreparable loss is going to be caused to these appellants. 6. We, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the judgment and order dated 6th December, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 during the pendency and final hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal" Learned counsel further submits that the only reason why the appointment letters were not issued to the petitioners is the pendency of L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 which is apparent from reading of paragraphs-13 and 14 of the counter affidavit. "13. That it is in view of the order of this Hon''ble Court in L.P.A. No. 615/2017 that the respondents RIMS is not issuing appointment letter to the candidates who have been selected for appointment as Senior Residents in RIMS as contained in memo no. 1619 dated 07.09.2017. 14. That the respondents RIMS is of an opinion and firm belief that all the candidates whose names figures in Annexure-2 to the instant writ petition (memo no. 1619 dated 07.03.2017) including the petitioner deserve to be appointed as Senior Resident in different department for which they have been selected for appointment as Senior Resident. However, it is only in view of the order issued by this Hon''ble Court in L.P.A. No. 615/2017 i.e. Annexure-4 to the instant writ petition that the respondent RIMS is not in a position to issuing appointment letter to the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates." Learned counsel has further referred the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 5533 of 2018, which reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioners states that before passing the impugned interim order, he was not heard. He may, therefore, move an application seeking to vacate the interim order before the High Court. The Special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, Dr. Anita Kumar and another [Interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015] filed stay vacating petition being I.A. No. 316 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017, which reads as under: "3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, Dr. Anita Kumar and another [Interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015] filed stay vacating petition being I.A. No. 316 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017, which reads as under: "3. Having heard counsel for the original appellants and the respondent nos. 4 & 5, it appears that the appellants (original petitioners), who were working as Tutor since 2007 - 08 in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, popularly known as RIMS, Ranchi, thereafter, Regulations of 2014 were enacted and the post of Tutor was made a tenure post. These regulations are not applicable to the original petitioners, who are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Respondent nos. 4 & 5, who are the appellants in this interlocutory application, are the appointees in pursuance of the advertisement given after 2014. Thus, new regulations enacted in the year 2014 - making the post of Tutor as a tenure post, are applicable to the respondent nos. 4 & 5 of this Letters Patent Appeal - who are the applicants of this interlocutory application. 5. Moreover, these appellants have no objection if the case of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 (applicants of this interlocutory application) is considered in accordance with law and also in accordance with the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015, dated 06.12.2017, by the respondent - authority, because, the original petitioners are not having any conflict of interest with the respondent nos. 4 & 5. Several posts of the Tutors are still vacant. 6. Thus, the stay granted by this Court in I.A. No. 9886 of 2017 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017, is, hereby, modified to the effect that the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2018 shall not be made applicable to the respondent nos. 4 & 5. Their appointment will be made in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 dated 06.12.2017. 7. Rest of the order passed in I.A. No. 9886 of 2017 dated 16.01.2018, shall remain intact and as it is." Mr. 4 & 5. Their appointment will be made in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015 dated 06.12.2017. 7. Rest of the order passed in I.A. No. 9886 of 2017 dated 16.01.2018, shall remain intact and as it is." Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel further submits that in view of order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, as of now the grounds taken by the respondents is not sustainable and as such, the writ petition is fit to be allowed. Learned counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that an advertisement was published on 09.07.2016, interview letter was issued to one or the other petitioners on or about 06.10.2016, the result was published on 07.03.2017 and the petitioners were declared successful and selected. It is not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court directed by order dated 18th June, 2018 passed in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 that similarly situated persons will be appointed in accordance with law and in accordance with the Judgment delivered by this Court on 06.12.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. 6. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - RIMS submits that before the order of this Hon''ble Court could be implemented, the direction was passed in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 and as such, the respondents - RIMS could not take any decision pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. Learned counsel submits that the purport and spirit of the direction passed in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 is that the respondents - RIMS should not give effect to the appointment of newly selected Senior Resident pursuant to the advertisement no. 8576, dated 09.07.2016. Learned counsel however fairly submits that the respondents - RIMS is of the opinion and firm belief that all the candidates whose names figures in Memo No. 1619, dated 07.03.2017 including the petitioners, deserve to be appointed as Senior Resident in different department for which they have been selected for appointment as Senior Resident. 8576, dated 09.07.2016. Learned counsel however fairly submits that the respondents - RIMS is of the opinion and firm belief that all the candidates whose names figures in Memo No. 1619, dated 07.03.2017 including the petitioners, deserve to be appointed as Senior Resident in different department for which they have been selected for appointment as Senior Resident. Learned counsel however submits that in view of order passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench in I.A. No. 316 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 and modification of the interim order dated 16.01.2018, the respondents - RIMS shall take appropriate decision in the matter of appointment of the petitioners and Others. 7. Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to learned AAG submits that appointment to the post of Tutor is to be made by the RIMS on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and as per Rule-11 of the RIMS Regulation, 2002, for the appointment in education cadre in RIMS, recommendation has to be made by the Selection Committee for appointment in pursuance of advertisement and after approval of the Governing Body. The Governing Body as well as the Selection Committee of the RIMS is the competent authority to take the decision on appointment matter and Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand is the formal party. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Orders passed by this Court as well as Division Bench and Hon''ble Supreme Court. The contention of the respondents - RIMS that in view of the order of this Hon''ble Court in L.P.A. No. 615/2017 they are not issuing appointment letter to the candidates who have been selected for appointment as Senior Residents in RIMS as contained in memo no. 1619 dated 07.09.2017 is not sustainable in view of the fact that after order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 5533/2018, the Hon''ble Division Bench has already modified the interim order dated 16.01.2018 while disposing of the Intervention Application filed by Dr. Anita Kumari and another i.e. I.A. No. 316 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017. The Hon''ble Division Bench has modified the interim order dated 16.01.2018 to the extent that the stay granted shall not be made applicable to the respondent nos. Anita Kumari and another i.e. I.A. No. 316 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017. The Hon''ble Division Bench has modified the interim order dated 16.01.2018 to the extent that the stay granted shall not be made applicable to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 [interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015] with a further observation that the appointment will be made in accordance with law and in accordance with the Judgment delivered in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015. The petitioners are similarly situated like Dr. Anita Kumari and Manju Boipai [Interveners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015] and as such, they deserve similar benefits. From the counter affidavit as well as arguments advanced on behalf of respondents RIMS it is apparent that the RIMS is of an opinion and firm belief that all the candidates whose names figures in Annexure-2 to the instant writ petition (memo no. 1619 dated 07.03.2017) including the petitioners deserve to be appointed as Senior Resident in different department for which they have been recommended for appointment as Senior Resident. However, it is only in view of the order issued by this Hon''ble Court in L.P.A. No. 615/2017 i.e. Annexure-4 to the instant writ petition that the respondent RIMS is not in a position to issue appointment letter to the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates. 9. In view of facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents - RIMS is directed to consider case of petitioners for appointment as per the final result published vide Memo No. 1619/RIMS, Ranchi dated 07.03.2017, issued by the Director, RIMS and further issue letter of appointment to the petitioners for the post which are not occupied by the writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 2274 of 2015.