- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) THE appellants' case is that on April 21st, 1992, a decision was given by the Patna High Court, whereby it was ordered that it will be enquired whether the appointment of the appellants were regular or irregular or de hors the rules after hearing the appellants. On 30.5.1992, the Bihar Government passed the order, whereby it was categorically held that the appointment of the appellants were made without there being any advertisement. There was no roster clearance. There was no proper Selection Committee constituted and no Selection List was made. The reservation policy was not adhered to and the appointments were made without being referred by the Employment Exchange. On all these grounds, the Bihar State Government ordered that the appointment of the appellants was de hors the rules and irregular. Therefore, they were not entitled to be continued in service. This order of termination having been passed in the year . 1992, the appellants did not challenge the same in any forum. Today, before us it is contended that against this order of the Full Court, no personal hearing was given to the appellants. We are at a loss to understand that the grievance of the appellants were regarding the personal hearing and they should have filed a contempt petition in the year 1992 itself when the cause of action arose. The learned counsel for the appellants further stated that it is not the order of 1992, which is the final order, whereas the final order was passed in the year 2002. We are at a loss to understand as to how the order passed in the year 1992 can (sic -cannot?) be said to be the order of termination of the services. Finally, all the appellants come with only plea that the services of the appellants have not been terminated following the departmental procedure. Certain interdepartmental communication was also brought to our notice to claim limitation. We are afraid that the limitation cannot be granted on the basis of these inter -departmental communications. None of them have been ever addressed to the appellants. The appellants are negligent and filed the petition in 2002, which .was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the year 2008.
(3.) THE impugned order was passed in the year 1992 and the learned Single Judge has not gone into the merit of the case and dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches.;