Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the orders, dated 19.9.1985 and 17.7.1985, contained in Annexures-1 and 1/A, whereby service of the petitioners was terminated. 2. It appears, previously a bench of this Court had dismissed this writ application on 21.1.1986 in limine. Thereafter the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 1985. The order of this Court was set-aside with a direction to admit the writ application for hearing the parties. At the same time the respondent-authorities were also directed to re-instate the petitioners with effect from 1st August, 1986, subject to the final result of this writ petition. In view of the aforesaid order petitioners have been admittedly continuing in service. 3. It appears from the facts of this case that with a view to make appointments, in the month of April, 1982 advertisement was made by the District Employment Officer in daily newspapers including Indian Nation to fill up the posts of Lower Division Clerks in the office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka. 4. On 9th August, 1982 petitioners were informed by the District Employment Officer, Dumka to send passport size photographs duly attested by the Gazetted Officer. In terms of the aforesaid direction petitioners fulfilled all the requirements. Thereafter on 21.1.1982 petitioners were directed by the District Employment Officer to appear at the typing test etc, with their testimonials. It would further reveal that decision to fill up all the vacant posts of Class-III and IV staff in the office of the Deputy Development Commissioner was taken by the State Government. At the same time the authorities of the District Level were also directed to submit compliance of the aforesaid direction. 5. Thereafter, the matter was processed by a committee of which Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana was the Chairman. Accordingly, on the basis of recommendation of the said committee, petitioners were appointed vide order Nos. 201/83 and 202/83, dated 4th March, 1983 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka. Thus all the petitioners continued to serve the department to the full satisfaction of the higher authority, until impugned orders were served. 6. In the impugned orders, no reason has been assigned for cancellation of petitioners appointment save and except that there was no need for their services. 7. Although there is no counter-affidavit on the record, but Mrs. Thus all the petitioners continued to serve the department to the full satisfaction of the higher authority, until impugned orders were served. 6. In the impugned orders, no reason has been assigned for cancellation of petitioners appointment save and except that there was no need for their services. 7. Although there is no counter-affidavit on the record, but Mrs. Sheema All Khan, appearing for the State, submits that a counter-affidavit was already filed. However, during hearing of this matter, a copy of the affidavit was placed before me. It has been alleged that some of the members of the Selection Committee were not present at the meeting when decision was taken for appointment of petitioners. But a stand was taken by the petitioners that at least, out of six members, four including the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Collector were present. 8. Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan next contended that in fact at subsequent stage it was found that all the members of the Committee were not informed about the meeting, when decision was taken for appointment of the petitioners. She further contended that no doubt post were advertised through employment exchange, but in fact appointments were made from a different panel. 9. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that impugned decision to terminate services of the petitioners has been taken without any notice and reasonable opportunity. That apart no reason whatsoever was assigned in the impugned orders, save and except that the department had no need for the services of the petitioners. Therefore, any subsequent statement to justify the impugned order by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, cannot meet the requirements which an authority is required to fulfil at the time when decision was taken to terminate services. 10. The submission of Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan has further been controverted saying that names of the petitioners and others were sponsored by the employment exchange which would be evident from different letters annexed with the writ petition. That apart this is not a case where appointments were made on the basis of back door entry. 11. Therefore, if after due observance of all the requirements petitioners were appointed by the competent authority, such appointments cannot be cancelled at a subsequent stage on such a plea. 12. Mr. That apart this is not a case where appointments were made on the basis of back door entry. 11. Therefore, if after due observance of all the requirements petitioners were appointed by the competent authority, such appointments cannot be cancelled at a subsequent stage on such a plea. 12. Mr. Jha next contended that apart from the facts, as stated above, admittedly petitioners are working against their respective posts since last more than 13 years. Therefore, It would be unjust to terminate their services at this stage on such a flimsy ground. 13. There is no denial that out of six members, four had attended the meeting to finalise decision for appointment of the petitioners. Constitution of such a committee is generally done by the authorities through executive action. Therefore, in absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, it cannot be said that decision taken by the four members of the committee would be illegal. Therefore, on such a flimsy ground it would not be proper to terminate their services at a stage when petitioners have continued working for about 13 years. That apart it has also to be remembered that not a single unsuccessful candidate has raised any grievance against appointment of petitioners. 14. Therefore, having regard to all the facts as noticed above, in my view, it would not be in the interest of justice to remove the petitioners from service at this stage. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned orders, contained in Annexures-1 and 1/A, are hereby set-aside. But in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.