S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services without considering the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010. Petitioners have further prayed that after quashment of the impugned order, their cases may be considered for regularization after exempting the age bar in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have been given the benefits of exemption from age bar. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent No. 2 be directed to enquire the matter of illegal appointment/ regularization of private respondent Nos. 3 to 15 and after enquiry, if it is found that they have been appointment illegally, in view of the fact that they have got less marks than the petitioners and have not appeared in the cycle test, their appointments/ regularization procedure may be cancelled.
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioners who were working as daily wagers have earlier preferred W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010 for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularization of their services in 4th grade post in the district of Hazaribagh, in view of the fact that they belongs to SC/OBC category and their names were paneled for the year 2005 but their cases were not considered though the similarly situated persons, who were below in the rank of the petitioners were considered for regularization. It has also been pleaded that some of the persons were also appointed/ regularized by the respondents by giving the benefits of age relaxation following the Rule-54 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code, whereas, the cases of the petitioners were not considered. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Hon'ble Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the entire documents enclosed with the pleadings of the parties, disposed of the writ petition on 04.12.2015, holding inter alia therein that, "Having regard to the relevant material facts pleaded and upon considering the submissions of the parties, it appears that the respondents should take a decision on the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and subject to the satisfaction of all laid down conditions. Peittioners have also alleged that there are persons from the same panel who have been appointed and some of them were reportedly over age. Therefore without commenting upon the merit of the claim of the petitioners, in respect of a panel of 2005, the matter is disposed of so that they may prefer fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, respondent No. 2 duly supported with all necessary facts and documents within a period of three weeks. Needless to say on such representation, an informed decision be taken in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.";