Order At the very outset the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought permission of this court to delete the names of private Respondents 4 to 14. He is permitted to do so. 2. The petitioners were serving in the post of chaukidars (Class-IV) in the Department of Agriculture and now by the impugned order dated 20th August, 1990 passed by respondent no. 2 their services have been terminated on the sole ground that they were wrongly appointed. In pursuance of the Advertisement issued in the daily newspaper the applications were called for the appointment in the post of Chaukidar in the Department of Agriculture (Plant Protection). The qualification was Class-VII pass. Accordingly, persons belonging to the reserved category and general category applied for the said post of Chaukidar. The petitioners were asked to appear in the interview along with the certificates in regard to their date of birth, the certificate showing that they belonged to the• reserved category, their registration number in the Employment Exchange and similar other papers. They appeared before a duly constituted Selection Committee of which Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection) was the Chairman. After interviewing the candidates including these petitioners, the Selection Committee recommended the petitioners and appointment letters were issued to them on the 25th January, 1990. They joined their appointment on different places of posting indicated in their letter of appointment issued to them in January and February, 1990. While they served for nearly seven months, all on a sudden, they were failed with the order of termination, contained in Annexure-‘1’, issued by Respondent no. 2 on the 20th August, 1990. 3. The impugned order does not indicate as to what was the illegality in their appointment. From Annexure 2', it appears that their appointment was illegal for the reason that it was based on the recommendation of a wrongly constituted Establishment Committee. At no point of time the petitioners were given any opportunity to show cause in order to enable them to explain the situation and to satisfy the authorities that they were legally appointed and/or that their appointments were made by a duly constituted Establishment Committee. At no point of time the petitioners were given any opportunity to show cause in order to enable them to explain the situation and to satisfy the authorities that they were legally appointed and/or that their appointments were made by a duly constituted Establishment Committee. It has now been settled by this Court in the case of Om Prakash Narain and others v. The State of Bihar [1990 (2) Patna Law Journal Report 738] that, before terminating the services of such employees on the ground that they were illegally appointed, they ought to have been given opportunity to show cause so that they could have been in a position to show their appointment had been legally made. 4. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharwan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 309 : 1991 (1) PLJR (SC) 68) wherein similar principle was laid down and in the said case it was held; "By an order dated November 2, 1988, the Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled the appointments of the appellants. Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Respondents has contended that the appointments have been cancelled because the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to make the appointments, it wag a device of by-passing the reservations and that the conditions which are part of the appointment order were not complied with. Mr. U.R. Lalit and Mr. A. K. Ganguli, learned Senior Advocates appearing fur the appellants have controverted these allegations and have stated that all these teachers were validly appointed and they had joined their respective schools. It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order of cancellation dated November 3, 1988 on this short ground. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order of cancellation dated November 3, 1988 on this short ground. As suggested by the• learned Solicitor General, we direct that the Secretary (Education), Government of Bihar, or to other person nominated by him should give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and thereafter give a finding as to whether the appellants were validly appointed as Assistant Teachers". 5. In the case, the facts enumerated above have not been controverted and no counter-affidavit has been filed although twice such opportunity was given to the State. 6. We, therefore, set aside the order contained in Annexure-'1' and direct the respondent no. 2 Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Government of Bihar, Mithapur, Patna to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and, thereafter, record a finding as to whether they were validly appointed as Chaukidars. 7. We, accordingly, allow this writ application but without costs.