Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. These eight writ petitions have been filed by the 17 writ petitioners challenging the order of their termination from service passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, kosi Range, Saharsa (respondent No.4 ). Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement and selection process for the recruitment to the post of Constables in Saharsa range, these petitioners applied and appeared before the selection committee which was constituted by the order of the director-General of Police according to police Order No.202 of 1988. All the petitioners were appointed to the post of Constable sometime in the year 1992. Thereafter they were sent for training and they have been working since then. It has also been stated in the writ petition that some of the petitioners have been rewarded for their performance of work. However, while they were working in the capacity of Constables, the impugned show-cause notice dated 5th october, 1995 (Annexure- 2) was issued by the Deputy Inspector-General of police, Kosi Range, Saharsa, asking the petitioners to show-cause why their services should not be terminated on the alleged ground of irregularity in their selection. It may be mentioned here that no particular irregularity has been mentioned in the said show-cause notice. However, pursuant to the said show-cause notice, the petitioners gave a detailed reply and thereafter the impugned order of termination was passed which is dated 30th December, 1995 only stating therein that the reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioners was not found satisfactory. 3. This Court is of the opinion, on perusal of the show-cause notice and the final order that in the show-cause notice no particular has been given as to why the petitioners selection to the post of constable was found to be irregular. Therefore, the petitioners were asked to give a reply against a vague notice and the final order passed is equally a nonspeaking one in which it has been stated that the reply filed by the petitioners to the said show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, the petitioners were asked to give a reply against a vague notice and the final order passed is equally a nonspeaking one in which it has been stated that the reply filed by the petitioners to the said show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory. This Court is firmly of the view that on such show-cause notice and the final order, the persons so selected and appointed to the post of constable and have been working there cannot be thrown out of their employment. It has been repeatedly held by the apex Court in number of cases that when a persons employment is taken away, the same has the effect of depriving the livelihood of the person concerned and as suck the livelihood of the person concerned can be taken away only on the basis of a procedure which is fair, just and proper. 4. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have obtained appointment by playing fraud upon the authorities or that their appointments have been made by way of a back-door method. Therefore, it is not the case of the respondents that the appointments of the petitioners have been made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have acquired a right after being appointed. 5. The admitted case of the respondents is that there are some irregularity in the appointment of the petitioners but no particular of such irregularity has been shown either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned final order of termination. 6. An attempt has been made in the counter-affidavit to make out a case that most of the petitioners were found deficient in height and as such the appointment is contrary to the direction contained in. Police Order No.202 of 1988. The said case is made out in the counter-affidavit only. 7. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court (sic) right from the case of Commissioner of Police V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in A. I. R.1952 S. C. page 16 which has been reiterated in the case of Mohinder Singh gill and another V/s. the Chief Election commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in A. I. R.1978 S. C. page 851 that an order publicly made cannot be improved by affidavit. The same thing is sought to be done in this case. The same thing is sought to be done in this case. As such this Court does not permit the case to be improved as allegedly made by the respondents in their countei affidavit. 8. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have referred to an enquiry report but a copy of the said enquiry report was not disclosed either in the counter-affidavit or in the show-cause notice. Therefore, placing reliance on the said report for the purpose of terminating the services of the petitioners without letting the petitioners know its contents is also another instance of violating the principles of natural justice and this Court cannot accept the aforesaid stand of the respondents. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in this connection has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh kumar Pandey V/s. The State of Bihar and others, C. W. J. C. No.3163 of 1993 disposed of on 10-11-1993 where a division Bench of this court on almost identical facts have held that merely on the ground of lack of height, the selection of the persons concerned cannot be cancelled. In that case the Division bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner of that case had the requisite height. Here also in all the writ petitions, the petitioners have asserted that they have the requisite height as required under the Police Order No.202 of 1988. However, since the only question is one of lack of physical height of the petitioners, these writ petitions succeed and the impugned orders of ter-mination of services of the petitioners are hereby set aside and quashed but a direction is given that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna to measure the height of these petitioners and submit a report. If the height of any one of the petitioners is found to be not in accordance with the requirement of Police order No.202 of 1988, only the services of that petitioner will be terminated by the authorities by passing an appropriate order. 10. The petitioners will furnish a copy of this order to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Headquarters)Patna within three weeks from today. 10. The petitioners will furnish a copy of this order to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Headquarters)Patna within three weeks from today. After receipt of a copy of this order, the deputy Inspector-General of Police (Headquarters), Patna will measure the petitioners height and submit his report indicating therein whether the petitioners height satisfies the requirement of Police Order No.202 of 1988 in case of male and lady constables and if the report of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Headquarters), Patna is that the petitioners possess the requisite-height, the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated. Such report may be given by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Headquarters) within six weeks of the receipt of this order. Till such report is made, the petitioners will not join their services. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, all these writ-petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of termination are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed