Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Perused the Writ petition and a copy .of the counter-affidavit supplied to me by the counsel for the Slate, as the counter-affidavit filed in the case is not with the file. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application against the order dated 17-5-1994 of the State Government, contained in Annexure-11, issued under the signature of the Special Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna, by which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on, the ground that the same was irregular. 3. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Circle Muharrir on temporary basis on 4-12-1969 in the office of Hazaribagh Anchal (vide Annexure-1). Thereafter, the authorities took steps for selection of Muharrir and Ors. according to the relevant rules and the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination and his name was included in the list prepared for appointment of Muharrir. As the sanctioned post of Circle Muharrir was not available in the department, the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Muharrir. However, on 16-6-1971, the petitioner was appointed as Circle Muharrir against the sanctioned post and he was continuing on the said post and was later on made permanent on the said post, as evidence from the order dated 18-3-1983 (Annexure-6). 4. It appears that a grievance was made by one Surinder Prasad Singh that though his name in the merit list was above the petitioner, ignoring his claim the petitioner was appointed. The authority, thereafter, issued a show cause to the petitioner and after considering the cause shown by the petitioner, the aforesaid order was passed. 5. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it appears that the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination and thereafter a panel was prepared but his name was shown below the name of one Surinder Prasad Singh. Surinder Prasad Singh made a representation and the matter was raised in the Assembly and thereafter the matter was investigated and after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. 6. From the facts, stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as back as in the year 1971 and thereafter he was made permanent as a Circle Muharrir. 7. 6. From the facts, stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as back as in the year 1971 and thereafter he was made permanent as a Circle Muharrir. 7. From the counter-affidavit it does not appear that as to when the question was raised in the Assembly and when Surendra Prasad Singh had filed representation alleging irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner has worked for more titan 24 years on the said post. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. 8. No doubt, in case of illegal appointment, this Court will appreciate the stand of the State Government in terminating the services of the person illegally appointed. But this steps should be taken by the State Government with a" reasonable time. Cancellation or termination of service after such a long time without assigning any reason will create uncertainty in the service and no Government Servant would feel safe in the service and will not discharge his duties honestly and fearlessly. 9. This apart, from the impugned order it appears that nothing has been stated in the order as to what are the grounds on the basis of which the appointment of the petitioner is illegal, in my view, due to the long delay in taking Action against the petitioner and non-disclosing of any reason for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-11, is quashed.