V. Gopala Gowda, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.)THESE Civil Appeals are filed by the Appellant -State of Jharkhand questioning the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2011 and connected cases which allowed the appeals of the Respondent -writ Petitioners by setting aside the judgment dated 25.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the Respondent -employees were dismissed and the Interlocutory Application No. 3223 of 2011 was allowed after quashing the show cause notices issued and orders of termination of services of the Respondent -employees. The Division Bench of the High Court by framing certain substantial questions of law has held that the Respondents herein shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The Appellants being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and orders have filed these Civil Appeals by urging various facts and legal grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and orders by allowing the Civil Appeals.
Certain relevant facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to examine the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and further to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in these Civil Appeals.

(3.)THE Respondent -employees (the writ Petitioners before the High Court), were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short "the BPSC") was not required. It is the case of the Respondent -employees that they have continuously discharged their duties in the above posts honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of their employer. They were subsequently appointed on ad -hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers in the pay -scales of Rs. 1000 -50 -1700 P. Ro -10 -1820/ -, with certain conditions on the basis of recommendation made by the BPSC against temporary posts from the date of notification. Their services as Assistant Engineers on ad -hoc basis were entrusted to work in the Road Construction Department where they were required to contribute their work within the stipulated period. The relevant condition No. 2 in the said notification No. Work/G/1 -402/87,248/(S) Patna dated 27.6.1987 is extracted hereunder:
1. XXX

2. This ad -hoc appointment shall be dependent on approval of Bihar Public Service Commission.

3. XXX

It is their further case that they have been working in the said posts for more than 29 years from the date of first appointment as Junior Engineers and 23 years from the appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad -hoc basis. Neither the BPSC nor Bihar State Government nor Jharkhand State Government had intention to dispense with the services of these employees. Therefore, they did not take steps to dispense with their services from their posts. The employees approached the High Court when they were issued the show cause notices dated 20.4.2010 by the Appellant No. 3. After taking substantial work from the Respondent -employees they have been harassed by issuing show cause notices asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground of their appointment to the posts as illegal/invalid. Their appointments were, however, not held to be invalid either by the orders of the High Court or Supreme Court in spite of the fact that 199 posts filled up by advertisement No. 128/1996 issued by the BPSC dated 2.9.1996 as the same would not affect the Respondent -employees who otherwise have been in continuous service for more than 23 years in the substantial posts of Road Construction Department and not of Rural Engineering/Rural Works Department. Therefore, it was pleaded by them that the impugned notices issued to them was an empty formality with preconceived decision and the same is also not only discriminatory but also suffers from legal malafides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is in utter transgression of the interim order dated 22.3.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1001 of 2010 amounting to overreaching the majesty of the High Court.