petition as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal cannot be said to have been fully redressed. According to the appellants and the petitioners in the transferred cases, when the State Government chose to follow the second option referred to in the order dated 20th February, 2000 there should have been an opportunity extended to them and since they were taken aback unaware by the order dated 30th April, 2004 there was every justification for setting aside the said order. The learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 17th September, 2007 having noted that there was no intrinsic change in the policy of the year 1978 or 1990 in selecting the reserved candidates when they faired well in the open merit category and thereby the reservation policy would not be in any way affected, the interference with the said selection was wholly uncalled for. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that the selection came to be made in the year 1990, appointments came to be issued in the year 1992 and the appellants and the petitioners in the transferred cases were all continuing in their respective posts in which they came to be originally appointed till this date by virtue of the interim orders granted by the Court and in that process 25 years have gone by and it would be harsh to allow the State Government to proceed with the stand expressed before the Division Bench and thereby upset the entire matter of selection initially made which remained JUDGMENT in force till this date.
17.Learned senior counsel also pointed out that only four persons were really aggrieved relating to the selection made in the year 1991 and of whom grievances of two of the persons have been safely redressed while two others were given liberty to work out their remedy who chose not to proceed further and thereby they have accepted the order passed by the Division Bench in the Contempt Petition No. MJC NO.1938/1999 dated 5th May, 2004. The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that it would be wholly inequitable and inappropriate if the order of the Division Bench is allowed to remain.
18.Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar and Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand also tried to contend that since the order of the Division Bench dated 20th February, 2000 has become final and conclusive, it was incumbent upon the State Government to comply with the said order especially when the State Government was facing contempt of the said order in MJC NO. 1938 of 1999. The learned counsel for the State of Bihar, therefore, submitted that while exercising its second option as directed in the said order dated 22nd February, 2000, it became inevitable for the State of Bihar to pass the order dated 30th April, 2004 behind the back of the petitioners. Insofar as the State of JUDGMENT Jharkhand is concerned, we find that by virtue of the order dated 30th April, 2004, when the dislocation of the appellants and petitioners in the transferred cases, in particular, Mr. Paras Nath Yadav and Jagbandhu Mahto are concerned, as a result of the said order the State of Jharkhand had directed both of them to get themselves repatriated to the State of Bihar.
19.Having heard and having noted the respective submissions and having perused the material papers, we find that having regard to the position that prevails as on date, we can pass orders directing the respective State Governments to continue to allow the appellants and petitioners in the transferred cases who have come before us to hold the respective posts for which they came to be originally appointed and by passing such orders no prejudice can be caused either to the respective State Governments or to those aggrieved officers who initiated the proceedings by filing their writ petitions, namely, Writ Petitions - CWJC NO. 10892/94 and CWJC No.3699/1993 which later on culminated in the order of the Division Bench dated 22nd February, 2000 passed in LPA NO. 692 of 1999. As was noted by us earlier in the order dated 5th May, 2004, all the four appellants Devendra Kumar Singh, Deoband Kumar Singh got their respective posts changed by the order dated 30th April, 2004 in the higher post of Bihar Education Service and thereby their grievances JUDGMENT stood redressed. By effecting the said change, none of the appellants and petitioners in the transferred cases were affected. Insofar as two other appellants namely, Sudhanshu Kumar Tripathi and Shashi Bhushan Jha are concerned, though they raised a grievance in the contempt petition namely, MJC NO. 1388 of 1999 as against the order dated 30th April, 2004, the Division Bench while passing its order in contempt petition on 5th May, 2004, made it clear that the compliance reported in the order dated 30th April, 2004 was acceptable to it and it was not inclined to proceed with the contempt application. It, however, gave liberty to those two officers to work out their remedy in accordance with law if they are so advised. The fact remains that both of them have not chosen to make any further challenge. Thereby the grievance of those four officers now stands concluded and no further orders are necessary in their cases.
20.In the said situation, since the appellants and petitioners in transferred cases have been holding the post from the date of their initial appointment and are continuing as such till this date namely for the past more than 25 years and in the absence of any serious challenge to their holding of the respective posts, we are convinced that by allowing them to continue to retain their posts till they reach the age of superannuation no prejudice will be caused to anyone. With that view by holding that the appellants and the petitioners in the JUDGMENT transferred cases stands and they shall be transferred cases shall be allowed to hold their posts in which they came to be initially appointed without reference to the order dated 30th April, 2004 and also making it clear to the State Governments not to interfere with the said posting initially made and the subsequent benefits accrued to them based on such posting and also allow them to retire on their reaching the age of superannuation. The appeal and the transferred cases stand disposed of.
21.The benefit granted under this order should enure to the applicants in IA NOs. 16, 17 and 20 who are identically placed like that of the appellants and who have been pursuing their remedies till this date. Their status quo ante should be restored. We hasten to add that this order shall not be and cannot be quoted as a precedent in any other case, inasmuch as this order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, as noted by us in detail in the earlier part of our order.