IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6867 of 2002 MD.NURUZZAMAN & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 3/ 29.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The relief sought for in this writ application is for grant of continuity in service with seniority protection from the date that the petitioners were initially appointed on 5.09.1990 and 20.03.1991 respectively in the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation on the post of Junior Field Investigator. It is submitted that advertisement no. 19/87 was published for appointment against different Class-III posts in various departments. After fulfillment of the selection procedure, a panel of candidates was prepared in order of merit and their names recommended for appointment in different departments. The petitioners joined on the post of Junior Field Investigator in the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation on the dates mentioned above. C.W.J.C. no. 7932/1991 was filed by another challenging the recommendation on the ground that the marks of the Hindi paper could not have been added for the purpose of preparation of the merit list as it was only a qualifying subject. This Court directed 2 rearrangement of the merit. The petitioners’ position went down in the new merit list. They now become ineligible for appointment in the said Directorate of Statistical and Evaluation. Their services were terminated on 03.02.1994. Their names found place in the new merit list for the Soil Conservation Directorate when they were recommended as such on 24.05.1994 and appointment letter issued on 26.07.1994. This was again the subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No.8508/1994 on the ground that the principle of roster clearance was not appropriately followed. This Court on 28.03.1995, directed preparation of revised list. On 24.11.1995, 17 candidates were recommended for appointment in the Soil Conservation Directorate. The name of the petitioners did not find place therein, leading to their termination from the Soil Conservation Directorate of 13.12.1995. In consequence of rearrangement of merit list pursuant to the order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8508/1994, simultaneously on 24.11.1995 the petitioners were recommended for appointment in the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation when they were granted appointment letters with directions for joining on 28.12.1996, which they did. Notices to show cause were then issued to them on 24.07.1998 as to why their appointment be not cancelled for having been made without the 3 recommendation of the Commission. The petitioners specifically submitted their reply to the same explaining that their name did find place in the recommendation of dated 24.11.1995. Subsequently, the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation by letter dated 08.09.1998 directed that 32 Junior Field Investigators (a post on which the petitioners were also appointed) appointed by the Directorate’s order dated 28.11.1996 had been cancelled by an order dated 01.09.1998. The order dated 28.12.1996 was a sequel to the recommendation of commission dated 24.11.1995 in which the name of the petitioners also found place. The petitioners were, therefore, directed to be present with their documents and thereafter fresh appointment letters were issued to them on 03.12.1998 and 28.12.1998. The submission on behalf of the petitioners assailing aforesaid orders dated 03.12.1998 and 28.12.1998 at Annexures-9 and 10 is that it purports to treat them as fresh appointees leading to reckoning of their seniority after such appointment only ignoring and rendering as redundant the original appointment of the petitioners and their position in the merit list. It is submitted that there is no fault attributed to the petitioners. The selection is not in dispute. There are no allegations against them with regard to the conduct of the 4 examination. Whatever be the fault it was of the respondents and the petitioners cannot be deprived of their seniority position for the fault of the respondents. Strong reliance has been placed on a Judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 9792/1996 dated 27.01.1998 at annexure- 11. Learned counsel for the State submitted from annexure-14 an order of November, 2001 that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9792/1996 since they were not parties therein. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, found it difficult to distinguish the case of the present petitioners on facts with that of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. 9792/1996, who were appointed under the very same advertisement no. 19/87 and whose services also came to be terminated in like manner for reasons of the very same orders of this Court referred to hereinabove duly requiring revision of the seniority list. This Court on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case does not find any justification in the stand of the respondents that merely because the petitioners were not parties in C.W.J.C. No. 9792/96, they were not entitled to the benefit of the same. From a bare perusal of the facts in C.W.J.C. No. 9792/1996 discussed in the Judgment under reference, this Court finds that the 5 present petitioners are similarly situated. It has been held by this Court and the Apex Court that once an issue is decided, those who are covered by the issue should be extended the same benefit by the State in stead of requiring them to file separate writ applications thereby merely multiplying litigation for the pleasure of the respondents. The writ applications have, therefore, to be allowed in similar terms as C.W.J.C. no. 9792/1996 both with regard to the protection of their seniority, as directed therein in at paragraph-6 and 7 of the Judgment, and also fixation of salary and retirement benefits. The writ application stands allowed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)