IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1684 of 2009 1. MD.IZHAR ALAM S/o Md. Yadan Ansari, Resident of Village – Khapara, PO & PS Akorhigola, District – Rohtas at Sasaram 2. Ram Nath Ram S/o Sri Sita Ram, Resident of Village Phatepura, PO Nawadih, PS Dehri-on-sone,District Rohtas at Sasaram ………. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary-cum- commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Engineer –in- Chief, PWD, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer, Bhojpur Circle, PWD, Ara 4. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Sahabad Road Division, Ara ………… Respondents ----------- 02- 3.2.2009 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar I for the petitioners, and Mr. P K Verma, learned AAG XI. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to allow them to continue on class IV post in the Department of Road Construction at Ara. It appears that the petitioners were initially employed for a period of three months on class IV posts in the Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, which was perhaps extended for a further period of six months. Their services were dispensed with vide office order no.1019 dt. 17.8.95 (Annexure 2), on the ground that they had been illegally appointed. Learned AAG submits that the petitioners had earlier moved this Court by preferring CWJC No.7126 of 2005, challenging the order dated 17.8.95 (Annexure 4 therein), which was dismissed by order dated 27.2.2007 (Annexure 1). The petitioners challenge the said order dated 17.8.95 (Annexure 2 herein). I must, however, consider the grievances raised by the petitioners on the strength of paragraph-4 of the said order dt. 27.2.2007 (Annexure 1), which reads as follows:- - 2 - “4. There is no material on record to show that respondent nos. 5 and 6 continues to function. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the petitioners to re-agitate the matter if respondent nos. 5 and 6 have continued to function inspite of Annexure A and B.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent nos. 5 and 6 of the earlier writ petition have been re- appointed. Learned AAG is right in his submission that the petitioners have not laid the requisite factual foundation in the writ petition. The brief reference in paragraph-1 of the writ petition is inadequate, and the same sets out the relief claimed by the petitioners. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl