Judgment Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of order No. Pra. A. Bhu-Ni. 2010/74-3347/M dated 30th of May, 1974 (annexure 5). The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Geologists in the Department of Mines and Geology, vide order No. Pra. A. Bhu. Ni. 2010/73/1970/M dated the 30th of March, 1974 (annexure 1) against sanctioned posts. The appointments, it is averred, were made according to the procedure laid down in the Government Circular of the Appointment Department communicated to all Departments of the Government of Bihar, vide Memo No. III/B-1-2048/52A-3236 dated Patna the 17th April, 1953 (annexure 2). Applications were invited through an advertisement in the Indian Nation dated 6th of February, 1974 (annexure 3) through the Employment Exchange. The petitioners who were fully qualified for the posts applied and subsequently were called for written test along with about 35 other candidates by the Director of Geology (respondent no. 2). Out of 40 candidates only 23 appeared at the aforesaid written test which was conducted by a Selection Committee consisting of (1) the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Mines and Geology, Patna, (2) the Director of Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna and (3) one Shri Tej Narayan Razak Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna. There were six posts and the aforesaid Selection Committee recommended the names of the five petitioners and of one Kumar Ashoka Bariar for appointment to those posts. The petitioners were appointed and joined the posts. Subsequently to their great surprise they learnt that their appointments were cancelled and their services terminated with immediate effect (vide annexure 5). They allege that their appointments were terminated mala fide at the instance of Basant Kumar Dubey (respondent no. 5), Cabinet Secretary, in order to favour one Vijoy Shankar Dubey who could not be appointed as his name was below the petitioners in the merit list. Respondent no. 5 approached and influenced the Chief Minister (respondent no. 4) to cancel the appointment of the petitioners on the false pretext that one Ashok Kumar Rohatagi had filed a petition stating that he was intentionally not called for interview. The Chief Minister ordered the Commissioner of Mines and Geology (respondent no. 1) to enquire into the matter. Respondent no. 5 approached and influenced the Chief Minister (respondent no. 4) to cancel the appointment of the petitioners on the false pretext that one Ashok Kumar Rohatagi had filed a petition stating that he was intentionally not called for interview. The Chief Minister ordered the Commissioner of Mines and Geology (respondent no. 1) to enquire into the matter. On being asked the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Mines and Geology (respondent no. 3) submitted a report to respondent no. 1 stating, interalia, therein that interview letter was issued to Ashok Kumar Rohatagi 'also and no irregularity had been committed by the Department. When the entire file was placed before the Chief Minister, he returned it again' to the Commissioner of Mines and Geology with orders that the whole case seemed fishy and the appointments were cancelled and fresh examination should be held and intimation be sent through registered post in advance. When the file came to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology (respondent no. 2) for necessary action he forwarded it to respondent no. 3 with a note that the appointment of the petitioners were made according to law and there was no irregularity committed by the Department in this regard. But respondent no. 3 after receipt of the file changed his views under the influence of the Chief Minister and cancelled the appointment arbitrarily. 2. Originally two counter-affidavits were filed one on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 another on behalf of respondent no. 5. The respondents in these affidavits denied the allegations of the petitioners. They expressly denied that there was any mala fide. It was asserted that on complaint made by Ashok Kumar Rohatagi the Chief Minister saw the records and passed the order as aforesaid as in his opinion there was something fishy in the matter Respondent no. 5 in his counter-affidavit specifically denied the allegation that Vijoy Shankar Dubey was favourite of his. 3. After having heard the case for some time, on 2nd of September, 1974, we decided to issue notice of the case to Ashok Kumar Rohatagi who was not made party to .the original writ petition. Accordingly he was also added as a party. He has filed a long show cause. It is not necessary to state averments made by him in detail. Accordingly he was also added as a party. He has filed a long show cause. It is not necessary to state averments made by him in detail. Shortly put his case, however, is that when the interview letter did not reach him, he made enquiries and as in his opinion there had been some golmal in the matter of calling candidates for interview, he approached the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister when he met him for the second time told him that after enquiry it had been revealed that no interview letter was posted to this respondent and the complaint made by this respondent was correct. It may, however, be stated that this averment of Ashok Kumar Rohatagi is contrary to the facts stated in affidavits filed on behalf of the other respondents. The case of other respondents on this question is that interview cards were sent to the candidates by ordinary post and out of 40 candidates, who were called for, only 23 candidates turned up for written test. 4. It is not possible to accept the case as made out by Ashok Kumar Rohatagi in his show cause that no interview letter for him was at all posted. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the State which has hotly contested the application of the petitioners that interview letter's were issued to all the 40 candidates but they were not issued by registered post. No rule or even an instruction of the Government was placed before us according to which the Selection Committee was required to send interview letters by registered post. It, therefore, appears that the Selection Committee did not contravene any rule of or instruction issued by the State Government. The appointment of the petitioner though on temporary basis conferred certain advantages upon them. True it is that temporary service can be terminated by the State Government without assigning any reason, but it is not open to it to do it in an arbitrary manner and in such a way as to cast a stigma on the character or conduct of the temporary employees. The remark of the Chief Minister that the whole case seemed to be fishy implies 'that he thought that the Selection Committee was influenced by the petitioners or that the, petitioners manoeuvred things in such a way as to deprive other candidates from appearing at the test. The remark of the Chief Minister that the whole case seemed to be fishy implies 'that he thought that the Selection Committee was influenced by the petitioners or that the, petitioners manoeuvred things in such a way as to deprive other candidates from appearing at the test. Learned Counsel for the State without any hesitation showed the entire file on the matter to us and we did not find anything therein on the basis of which it can be said that the Selection Committee acted in such a manner so as to justify the above remarks of the Chief Minister, The remark, therefore, appears to be based on no materials and arbitrary. On the materials on the record no conclusion, which could be basis of such a remark, could be reason ably arrived at. Further the file showed that the appointment of the petitioners was even approved by the Minister-in-charge. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that decision of the Minister could not be rescinded by the Chief Minister alone. It was a matter for the Cabinet. In support of this contention, our attention was drawn to Part II of Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India for this State. Rule 12 which is under that part says that all cases referred to in the Third Schedule shall be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Secretary to the Council after consideration by the Minister-in-charge, with a view to obtaining his orders for circulation of the case under rule 13 or for bringing it up for consideration at a meeting of the Council. Item 39 of Schedule III reads as follows: "Proposal to rescind, modify or annul a decision of the State Government taken earlier by Minister or the Council of Ministers or the Adviser to Governor or the Advisers at a meeting." Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, appears to be right in submitting that it was a matter for the Cabinet and not for the Chief Minister alone. It was contended that once the Chief Minister had passed orders, it should be presumed that he had passed it in accordance with law. Question of any presumption does not arise in the instant case. The definite case of the petitioners is that the order was passed by the Chief Minister alone. The respondents have not denied that fact. It was contended that once the Chief Minister had passed orders, it should be presumed that he had passed it in accordance with law. Question of any presumption does not arise in the instant case. The definite case of the petitioners is that the order was passed by the Chief Minister alone. The respondents have not denied that fact. The order is also had on that score. 5. It is not the case of the respondents that orders for rescinding all appointments in which interview letters were sent by ordinary post and not by registered post have been issued by the State Government. By not canceling other appointments in which interview letters were issued by ordinary post and not by registered post and canceling only the appointments of the petitioners on that ground shows that the State Government are making discriminatory treatment to the petitioners. The order of the State Government canceling the appointments of the petitioners is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed and order No. Pra. A. Bhu-Ni. 2010/74-3347/M dated 30th of May; 1974, as contained in annexure 5 to the writ application is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Lalit Mohan Sharma, J., I agree with the order proposed by my Learned Brother. The records which were produced by the Respondent-State indicate that the order of appointment of the petitioners was confirmed by the Minister-in-charge of the Department. After the protest was raised by Mr. Ashok Kumar Rohatagi, the added Respondent, it appears that the Chief Minister dealt with the matter without reference to the Minister-in-charge. 'Rules 12, 13 and 14 of Part' II of the Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are relevant in this regard. I agree with the view taken by my learned Brother on this point. Application allowed.