Manisana, J. — In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged an order dated ] .9.88 issued by the Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur terminating the services of the petitioners. 2. Jilla Singh (petitioner in Civil Rule No. 401), Krishnakumari Devi (petitioner in Civil Rule No. 403), Ratana Devi (petitioner in Civil Rule No. 404) and Yaima Singh (petitioner in Civil Rule No. 405) were appointed as Assistant Project Officers, Adult Educa­tion, on officiating capacity until further orders by different appoin­tment orders. Jilla Singh and Krishna Kumari,Devi were appointed by separate orders dated 27.10.86. Rataua and Yaima were appointed under appointment orders dated 28.11.86 and 27.3.87 respectively. Kuajo Singh, the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 402, was appointed under appointment order dated 27.11.86 until further order. The appointment order of Kunjo Singh does not show that he was appointed on officiating basis. The petitioners' services were termi­nated by an order dated 1.9.88 on the ground that they were appointed on officiating basis without the recommendation of a DPC. 3. Shri Ibobi Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that, while passing the impugned order, there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Pramod Chandra Singh, the learned Government Advocate and Shri Surjamani Singh, the learned counsel for the interveners, have contended that the principles of natural justice will not apply to the petitioners as the petitioners had no right to remain in their services for the reason that they could not be appointed as direct recruits under the relevant Recruitment Rules. 4. It is important to note that the termination of the services of the petitioners was not on the ground that the petitioners could not be appointed as direct recruits under the Recruitment Rates. As already stated, the petitioners' services were terminated on the sole ground that they were appointed on officiating basis without recommendation of a DPC. 5. The petitioners Jilla Singh, Krishna Kumari Devi, Ratana Devi and Kunjo Singh were in service for about 2 years. Petitioner Yaima Singh was in service for about one year. The ground of termination was that the petitioners were appointed on officiating basis without recommendation of any DPC, as already stated although the appointment order of the petitioner Kunjo Singh does not show that he was appointed on officiating capacity. Petitioner Yaima Singh was in service for about one year. The ground of termination was that the petitioners were appointed on officiating basis without recommendation of any DPC, as already stated although the appointment order of the petitioner Kunjo Singh does not show that he was appointed on officiating capacity. Assuming that the petitioners had no legal right to remain in their services as they were appointed illegally without recommendation of DPC, they had at least a legitimate expectation that they could continue in their service as they were not terminated earlier. The absence of right is not a convincing reason for not enforcing the duty to act fairly in the making of a decision drastically affecting individuals. Consistent to the principles of natural justice the petitioners, who have been affected by the decision of terminating from their services, should have been given an opportunity to explain why they should not be terminated from their services as they were appointed with­out recommendation of DPC, or they were appointed illegally. The principles of natural justice apply even to a person who has no legal right (See H.K. (An Infant), (1967) 2 OB 617). It is not disputed that no notice was given to the petitioners. Therefore, we are of the view that while passing the impugned order of termination, the principles of natural justice have been violated and, as such, order of termination cannot be sustained. Accordingly we pass the following orders: (1) The impugned order of termination, dated 1.9.88, is quashed. (2) The concerned respondent shall give show cause notices within 7 days from the receipt of this order. The petitioners shall give their reply within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, and thereafter the concerned respondent shall dispose of the matter. With the said observation and direction the petitions are allowed and disposed of. The interim orders passed by this Court, on 15.6.88 is merged in this judgment. Let a copy of this be placed on the file of each of writ petitions. Y. Imo. Singh, J. — I agree.