IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15295 of 2009 1. Upendra Kumar Sinha S/O Shri Krishnadev Singh Vill+P.O. Korara, P.S. Paligunj, Distt. Patna 2. Gagan Kumar S/O Late Baleshwar Prasad Vill+P.O. Aurabagicha, P.S. Dharhara, Distt. Mungyer 3. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Sri Murlidhar Singh Vill+P.O. Sahjadpur, P.S. Udakisunganj, Distt. Madhepura 4. Deepak Kumar Singh S/O Jung Bahadur Singh Vill- Bansipur, P.O. Chatmadih, P.S. Shambhugunj, Distt. Banka 5. Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Sri Vakil Singh R/O Professor Colony, K.G. Road, Ara, P.S. Nawadah, Distt. Ara ………………….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through Its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director-In-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna ………………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 03. 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners were appointed under National Programme of Leprosy Eradication on Class-IV post. Their appointments were finally found to be illegal as without following any procedure for legal appointment, such appointments were made beyond the sanctioned strength. The issue relating to the legality of appointment of the persons, like petitioner and others, appointed under National Programme of Leprosy Eradication, has been considered by the Single Bench, Division Bench and also by the Apex 2 Court. The finding recorded by the Single Bench regarding legality of appointment beyond the sanctioned strength for fraudulent reason was confirmed up to the Supreme Court. This application has been filed by the petitioner, subsequent to confirmation of termination by the Apex Court, on the ground of observations, made by the Single Judge and also affirmed by the Division Bench, since it has not been implemented by the State Government. The observation relates to giving weightage to such illegally appointed and subsequently terminated appointees, in the matters of fresh appointment, as and when made, following the Rules, giving relaxation of age and weightage to their experience. Counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no steps have been taken by the State Government for appointment against vacancies, in which the petitioner could have also participated and benefited on account of the observations made in the judgments of the Single Judge as well as Division Bench. Finally the counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the application with an observation that 3 as and when the State Government will advertise such vacancies in future, the candidature of petitioners shall also be considered, giving them weightage of experience and age relaxation. It is not evident from the pleadings of the Writ Application whether in case of each of the petitioner such observation was there. However, this application is permitted to be withdrawn with observation that in case in future if the State Government advertises posts for filling up those vacancies, which were subject matter of the Writ Applications before the Single Judge and Division Bench, the observation made in those Writ Applications should be made applicable in case of petitioners. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)