IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9421 of 2009 LEELA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9633 of 2009 AMAR KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9882 of 2009 RAJESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9706 of 2009 PRADEEP KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9832 of 2009 RAM KRIPAL SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9962 of 2009 BIRANCHI PRASAD YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9964 of 2009 SURYA NATH MANDAL & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9773 of 2009 SUMITRA DEVI @ SUMITRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9730 of 2009 AMOD KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9661 of 2009 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With 2 CWJC No.9686 of 2009 CHANDRA SHKEHAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9749 of 2009 BIJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9752 of 2009 MADHESHWAR RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9782 of 2009 VINAY KUMAR DEEPAK & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9457 of 2009 NARENDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9850 of 2009 CHANDRA SHEKHAR PD.SINGH &ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10167 of 2009 RAMESH BHAGAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10062 of 2009 RAVINDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10182 of 2009 KANCHAN KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9329 of 2009 SHITENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9201 of 2009 3 SHAILENDRA BHAGAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10172 of 2009 UPENDRA RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.9636 of 2009 MALTI KUMARI NO.1 OR (A)@MALTI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10051 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10257 of 2009 MEENA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 12.11.2009 Heard counsels representing the petitioners and counsels appearing for the State. Petitioners in all these writ applications have challenged the enquiry report submitted by the Five Men Committee constituted by the State Govt. in the light of order passed in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. Petitioners in almost all the cases were appointed in 1980, 1990 and thereafter. Almost all the petitioners have remained in service for more than 10 years. They have also challenged their termination order as well as enquiry reports on the similar ground as has been challenged by the petitioners in 4 C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases. Petitioners have stated that without issuing any notice, enquiry was conducted. Appointments of petitioners were considered illegal or forged, but similar treatments were not given to the employees, who were appointed in same transaction and should have been put in the same category. Persons who were put under irregular category, were reinstated, but some of the persons, who were entitled for being put in the same category, have been put in illegal appointees category, or in the forged category. Considering the grounds taken by petitioners’ for challenging the enquiry report and termination order, it is obvious that finding recorded by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases, is applicable in their cases. Enquiry report in these petitioners’ case also has been submitted without conducting the enquiry in proper manner as per direction of High Court in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. Considering the fact that almost all these cases are similar to those writ applications, already decided earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases, petitioners in these writ applications are also entitled for same relief. 5 The findings recorded in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases will have application in the cases of present petitioners, whose matters are being disposed of by the common order. Accordingly, the enquiry report submitted by Five Men Committee in favour of the petitioners is quashed. Their termination orders are also quashed. The respondents authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioners on the post they have working. Their reinstatement will be with effect from the date of their appointments with all consequential benefits. All these writ applications are allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)