JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. Since the issue involved in this bunch of writ petitions being common, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure P/1). The matter pertains to appointment on the post of Accountant/Revenue Inspector/Sanitary Inspector arising out of the advertisement dated 12.02.2018. The examinations were conducted on 01.04.2018 and the merit list was later on published on 17.09.2018 and thereafter posting orders for all the selected candidates consisting of 102 candidates were issued. 3. The grievance of the petitioners are that from the 102 candidates who were meritorious and in whose favour the posting order were issued, 41 candidates have already joined the services, however, on account of the requirement of verification of documents, joining of petitioners got delayed. Meanwhile the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 08.01.2019. For ready reference, the contents of the impugned order is relevant to be taken note of, which is reproduced herein as under : ^^lanHkZ&foHkkxh lela[;d i= fnukad 05-10-2018] 01-12-2018] 03-12-2018] ,oa 14-12-2018 d`I;k laanfHkr i=ks dk voyksdu djs ftlds }kjk ys[kkiky@jktLo fujh{kd@LoPNrk fujh{kd in ij lh/kh HkrhZ dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA vifjgk;Z dkj.kks ls ys[kkiky@jktLo fujh{kd@LoPNrk fujh{kd in ij lh/kh HkrhZ dh dk;Zokgh dks vkxkeh vkns'k i;ZUr LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g funsZ'k i= tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls izHkko'khy ekuk tk;sxkA^^ 4. The contention of the petitioners are that, from the perusal of impugned order it reflects that the intention of the State Govt. is to defer all further recruitment process pursuant to the letters dated 05.10.2018, 01.12.2018, 03.12.2018 and 14.12.2018. The petitioner further submits that the said reference letters infact deals with further fresh recruitment, if any, to be carried out by the department. That, it would not be applicable in respect of recruitment which has already been finalized and in which the petitioners have all been found selected and posting orders have also been issued. 5. According to the petitioners, once the recruitment process is complete and major portion of the selected candidates have already been given appointment, the State Govt. cannot stall grant of joining to the petitioners selected from the same recruitment process and from the same select list. 5. According to the petitioners, once the recruitment process is complete and major portion of the selected candidates have already been given appointment, the State Govt. cannot stall grant of joining to the petitioners selected from the same recruitment process and from the same select list. Moreover, most of the petitioners herein are placed over and above the persons who had already given their joining and thus the claim of the petitioners are better placed than the persons granted appointment. The petitioners in support of their contentions relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in cases of East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Othersk, (2010) 7 SCC 678 , Rakhi Ray and Others Vs. High Court of Delhi and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 637 and in case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Akhilesh V.S. & Others decided on 01.04.2019. 6. This court on the previous date of hearing directed the State counsel in these bunch of writ petitions of identical nature to seek instructions as to whether the reference letters referred to in the impugned order would affect the rights of the petitioners or not and whether it would be applicable only in respect of the subsequent fresh recruitment which would be undertaken by the department. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that he has received instruction from the department intimating him that issuance of the impugned order Annexure P/1 was on the basis of large number of complaints received by the department from individual complainants as well as from the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission and hence the department decided to conduct an enquiry and it is only pending the enquiry that the impugned order has been passed. 8. According to the State counsel, the department would make all necessary endeavors in ensuring that enquiry is completed at the earliest and this enquiry would also be applicable in respect of even those candidates who have already been given joining. Therefore, the petitioners as such should not feel aggrieved of issuance of the impugned order. In the enquiry, in case if it is found that there is no discrepancy whatsoever then the State Govt. would be issuing an appropriate orders granting joining to the petitioners also. 9. Therefore, the petitioners as such should not feel aggrieved of issuance of the impugned order. In the enquiry, in case if it is found that there is no discrepancy whatsoever then the State Govt. would be issuing an appropriate orders granting joining to the petitioners also. 9. Be that as it may, the submissions so made by the State counsel reflects that the order of appointment of the petitioners have been stalled only on account of some alleged pending enquiry based on the complaints received by the department. Now that the department has also taken steps for conducting an enquiry, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to ensure that enquiry contemplated is completed at the earliest within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. At this juncture it would be relevant to mention that if, for any reason, the State is unable to complete the enquiry within the aforesaid period of 90 days and the enquriy is getting prolonged for no fault of the petitioners, the respondents should take steps in ensuring that necessary joining is given to the petitioners and the said joining would however be subject to the outcome of the enquiry initiated in respect of the recruitment process. 11. Needless to mention that since joining of the petitioners is getting delayed on account of an enquiry initiated by the respondents, in the event if the State does not find any discrepancy or irregularity in the appointment of the petitioners, the petitioners would also be entitled for their seniority from the date other persons have been given joining in the department or from the date their documents were actually verified. 12. With the aforesaid observations, expecting the State to take a prompt decision at the earliest, all these writ petitions stand disposed of.