D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsels appearing for both the sides and it has been submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that in pursuance of the show cause notices, issued by the respondent -State to all forty two Engineers, twelve Engineers had preferred W.P. (S) No. 2087 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 25th July, 2011, against which seven Engineers, who were amongst original writ petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2087 of 2010, preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8th November, 2011 [now this judgment is reported in, 2012 (1) J.C.R. 477]. Thus, the seven Engineers, who were original petitioners out of twelve, have succeeded and against the decision, rendered in the Letters Patent Appeal, the State has preferred Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P. (Civil) No. 266 of 2012 wherein, other applications were preferred by the Engineers and, thereafter, upon hearing both the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 24th January. 2012, to maintain status quo as on the day as regard the services of the respondents (who were appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal). This order is at Annexure IA/3 in I.A. No. 1166 of 2012 in the present writ petition. Because of this order, seven Engineers, who had preferred Letters Patent Appeal, are now in job. So far as the question of issuance of notices on rest of the Engineers out of total forty two Engineers is concerned, the same has been deiced and the orders of termination have been passed by the Government on 24th August, 2011. Similar is the order for those, who had preferred Letters Patent Appeal also, but, because of the status quo order, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they are In job. Thus, total 42 Engineers, except seven Engineers, who were appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal, are not in the services with effect from 24th August, 2011.
(2.) LEARNED counsels for the petitioners are heavily relying upon the decision, rendered by this Court, as reported in, 2012 (1) JCR 477. Learned counsel for the respondent -State has pointed out that the earlier writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 2087 of 2010 was instituted against the show cause notices and, thus, the writ petition being premature, because no final decision was taken, was rightly dismissed and the State was directed to take a final decision. Against this decision, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred bearing L.P.A. No. 275 of 2011, which has been decided in favour of those appellants and now it has become a reported decision and, thus, now a detailed speaking order having been passed by the respondent -State dated 24th August, 2011, the facts of the present case are altogether different, because now the case is not based upon the show cause notices or the case is not based upon the probable allegation rather the case is now based upon the established facts.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has also pointed out that right from very beginning the appointment of the employees is illegal, which is evident from the decision, rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court dated 21s' November. 1995 and therefore, learned counsel for the respondent -State has pointed out that let all these matters be heard by way of final hearing.;