JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The petitioners were respondents in C. W. P. No. 376 of 1992 titled Satya Vati v. State and others Their appointment was challenged by the 5th respondent in that petition That petition also related to appointment of volunteer teachers in the school in question. Since the fact with regard to the marks given in the interview in the earlier writ petition appeared to be patently wrong and consequent thereupon the then learned Advocate General gave an assurance to this Court that the respondents, that is, the State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and other connected with the said department, will review the selection within six weeks since the defect with regard to the marks given in the interview appears to be patent. Thus the earlier writ petition stood disposed of in view of the said statement, 2. The instant writ petition is the out come of the review regarding the selection of volunteer teachers whereby the petitioners were not found meritorious in comparison to respondents No. 5 and 6 and consequently the services of the petitioners stood terminated vide orders dated 24-3-1993 Annexures V and T respectively, issued by the incharge Head-teacher, Government Primary School, Twar, Nirmand Block, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. In this writ petition the petitioners have sought the quashing of the aforesaid orders (Annexures T and T both dated 24-3-1993). In addition, the petitioners have also sought the quashing of the action of respondents No. J to 4 in reviewing the selection on the basis of allegedly different rules than the one applicable at the earlier selection and consequently appointing respondents No. 5 and 6, 3. Two vacancies of volunteer teachers under the Volunteer Teachers Scheme, 1991 fell vacant in Government Primary School, Twar located ai Renu. A selection committee consisting of three members but presided over by the 3rd respondent was constituted Interviews were held with effect from 17-8-1991 to 20-8-1991. Both the petitioners were selected. However, as stated above, their selection was challenged by respondent No. 5 in C.W.P. No. 376 of 1992 which was disposed of subject to respondents No. 1 to 3 reviewing the selection. Resultantly, the petitioners continued to be volunteer teachers in the aforesaid school. On reviewing the selection, respondents No. 5 and 6 were found comparatively more meritorious than the petitioners and the latter were released on 24-3-1993. Resultantly, the petitioners continued to be volunteer teachers in the aforesaid school. On reviewing the selection, respondents No. 5 and 6 were found comparatively more meritorious than the petitioners and the latter were released on 24-3-1993. Now petitioners have assailed the new selection. The grounds of challenge are s (1) that the composition of the review committee was bad inasmuch as it consisted of different members than the earlier selection committee ; (2) that the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 in releasing the petitioners is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as different criteria for selection of volunteer teachers has been applied than what was intended to be followed by the review committee; (3) that the termination of the services of the petitioners was contrary to the scheme inasmuch as thereunder the services should only be terminated by the appointing authority by giving a one months notice or one months wages in lieu of the notice and this procedure was not followed by respondents No. 1 to 4; (4) that the appointment of the petitioners under the scheme was for a period of two years and they having not been allowed to complete the tenure of their appointment, could not be released in the above said facts and circumstances. 4. Respondents No, 1 to 3 have filed their reply on the affidavit of Shri P. C Kapoor, Director of Primary Education, Himachal Pradesh. It has been contended that the instant petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the services of the petitioners have been terminated as a sequal to tic judgment passed in C.W.P No 376 of 1992. On merits it is submitted that the petitioners were not found meritorious in comparison to respondents No. 5 and 6 by the review committee according to the rules of 1991 applicable to them and consequently they were released vide the impugned orders. It has been contended that the termination was the resultant out come of the decision bf this Court passed in the earlier writ petition. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and we have also closely examimed the record. 6. Shri H. K. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has attempted to show that there has been selection of respondents No. 5 and 6 pursuant to such selection in accordance with the modified rules. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and we have also closely examimed the record. 6. Shri H. K. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has attempted to show that there has been selection of respondents No. 5 and 6 pursuant to such selection in accordance with the modified rules. In other words, there has been no review of the selection by the review committee in accordance with the rules applicable on the date of earlier selection of the petitioners. 7. In this regard, suffice it to state that interview in respect of earlier selection was held on 20-8-1991 when the Himachal Pradesh Volunteer Teachers (Primary) Scheme, 1991 was applicable. These rules were modified and were made applicable from 76-11-1992. The modification pertains to the award of marks in professional and academic qualification only. Otherwise, the remaining rules are the same. Under the earlier rules, the marks to be given by the selection committee under the aforesaid head, namely, professional and academic qualification, were as under ; (1) Matric 20 marks (2) J. B. T. ^5 marks (3) B. A. 5 marks (4) B. Ed. 5 marks For personal interview 25 marks 8. Under the revised norms for selection of volunteer teachers, the distribution of marks under the above said head, namely, educational and professional qualification, was as under:- (1) Matric 25 (2) B. A. Addl. 5 (3) B. Ed. Addl. 15 (4) J. B. T Addl. 10 (5) Any other professional qualification Addl. 8 (6) Personal interview 12 9. A perusal of the record shows that none of the petitioners nor the respondents involved in the instant writ petition had any additional qualification though, regarding interview of volunteer teachers statement shows the use of a now proforma, Mere use of such a proforma does not in any way indicate that the review committee reviewed the selection of the concerned candidate including the petitioners as also the respondents in the instant petition by applying the modified rules. Apart from this, it also reveals that those very candidates were sent for by the review committee who were earlier interviewed. Apart from this, it also reveals that those very candidates were sent for by the review committee who were earlier interviewed. Thus the argument that different rules have been applied by the review committee is meritless At this stage, it may be pointed out that during the pendency of the petition we had entertained a doubt that new selection policy involving different criteria for selection had been followed by respondents No. 1 to 3. However, the perusal of the entire record indicates otherwise, as discussed above. 10. Further, because of the review of selection pursuant to the orders of this Court, the merit of the appointment was involved and as the petitioners have been found less meritorious to respondents No. 5 and 6 as such their submission with regard to continuation in service during the tenure period cannot be considered, particularly in view of the fact that their initial selection pursuant to the review thereof was found to be bad. 11. The next question to be determined is whether on review of selection, the petitioners were entitled to be served with notice as envisaged under the scheme. We have already observed that the petitioners were not disengaged from service pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in earlier writ petition. They continue to discharge their duties. No doubt, on review they were found less meritorious than the respondents, yet their services were liable to be terminated in accordance with the rules. The basic principle is that the procedure prescribed must be meticulously followed. It should be just, fair and reasonable. Even the executive authority and State administrative action must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. la this view of the matter, respondents No I to i were under an obligation to proceed in a way which is free from arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness They were supposed to act in a manner which is patently impartial and met the requirement of natural justice. 12. Close examination of the record shows that the respondents had issued an office order dated 18-3-1993 directing that the services of the petitioners were no longer required and as such stood terminated after one months period from the date of issue of those orders. 12. Close examination of the record shows that the respondents had issued an office order dated 18-3-1993 directing that the services of the petitioners were no longer required and as such stood terminated after one months period from the date of issue of those orders. In other words, order was passed but notice was not served upon the petitioners in accordance therewith, May it be that the termination followed from the review of selection pursuant to the orders of this Court, yet both the petitioners were entitled to be served with such a notice as is envisaged under the Volunteer Teachers Scheme of 1991. To this extent the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has a substantial merit. The impact of the quashing of the orders would be that the petitioners would be deemed to be in service which is liable to be terminated with one months notice or payment of one months salary in advance. The respondents shall be at liberty to follow this course. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The termination orders dated 24-3-1993 (Anaexures T and T respectively) are ordered to be quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to be in service. However, respondents are at liberty to terminate their services by either serving one months notice or offering one months salary to either of them. As the respondents No. 5 and 6 have been found to be validly appointed, the said order shall not in any way effect their continuance in service. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition partly allowed. -