JUDGMENT Ashish N. Trivedi, J. Since similar facts and common questions of law are involved in both the Writ Petitions they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. C.W.J.C. No. 3017/94 2. The five petitioners have challenged the order contained in Memo No. 318 dated 2.2.1994 (Annexure-1 series) issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar terminating their services from various posts in the Government Polytechnics in the State on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners were illegal and their case is that they possess the requisite qualification and in pursuance of the advertisement published in the English daily 'Hindustan Times' on 14.10.1986 (Annexure-2) they applied for being considered for appointment on various posts in the Government Polytechnics in the State and claim that they have been registered with the Employment Exchange and were also duly sponsored by the respective Employment Exchange. They claim to have been working on daily wages on various post in the Government Polytechnic at Jamshedpur, Saharsa and Patna and their services were regularised in May, 1987 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Deputy Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar and letters of appointment (Annexure-3 series) issued between 25.2.1987 to 24.6.1987 by the Director, Science and Technology and they continued to discharge their duties and functions on the post of Clerk/instructor/Laboratory Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860, 730-1080 and 785-1210 respectively in the Government Polytechnics at Jamshedpur/Saharsa /Bokaro/Dumka and as such they acquired a legal right to continue and hold the post and they submitted the joining report along with medical certificate on 1.6.1987, 25.6.1987, 16.6.1987, 22.6.1987 and 15.12.1987 to the Principal of the respective Government Polytechnics and thereafter they were paid their salary in the respective pay scale However, by Order No. 2208 dated 13.7.1987 (Annexure-4) the Commissioner, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar cancelled their appointment without disclosing any reason and on non-existent grounds. The petitioners came to know that one Pramod Mishra and Anil Kumar who were working in the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur and whose services had been terminated filed Writ Petition which was registered in this Court as C.W.J.C. No. 9614 of 1989 and 5076 of 1989 challenging the Order No. 2208 dated 13.7.1987 and this Court by the order dated 11.10.1991 (Annexure-5) and by the order dated 16.12.1991 (Annexure-5/1) quashed the Order No. 2208 dated 13.7.1987 in so far as it related to the petitioners of those two Writ Petitions. The petitioners then filed several representations to the concerned authority for redressal of their grievance end being aggrieved by the inaction of the concerned authority in deciding their representation, the petitioners approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3122 of 1992 which was decided by a Division bench of this Court by the order dated 3.11.1992 (Annexure 6) and the impugned order was quashed with liberty to tile competent authority of the State Government to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 3. The petitioners submitted joining reports (Annexure 7) to the Secretary, Science and Technology Government of Bihar and after acceptance of their joining the petitioners were reinstated and were paid salary regularly and deductions were made towards G.P.F. Thereafter in pursuance of the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3122 of 1992 the Joint Director (Administration) Science and Technology vide letter No. 477 dated 22.2.1993 (Annexure-8) directed the Principal, Government Polytechnics Jamshedpur/ Adityapur/Dumka/Saharsa and Womens Polytechnic, Bokaro to serve notice to show cause on the petitioners as to why their appointment be not cancelled and they were called upon to submit their reply within one week. The petitioners filed their replies (Annexure-9) and denied all the allegations mentioned in the notice and asserted that their appointments had been made after following the prescribed procedure but to their utter dismay they were served with the impugned order dated 2.2.1994 (Annexure-1 series) which indicates that the services of the petitioners have been terminated for the reasons that the roster clearance had not been obtained from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department as regards reservation candidates were not called from the Employment Exchange, no selection committee was constituted prior to their appointment approval of the Government had not been obtained after preparing the penal of the candidates by the selection committee the petitioners were not interviewed and the alleged letters of appointment had not been issued from the despatch register maintained in the department. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that their reply to the notice to show cause was rejected mechanically and the alleged reason for termination of their services are non-existent inasmuch as the petitioners had applied for being considered for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.10.1986 (Annexme-2) and all the petitioners were registered with the respective Employment Exchanges and their candidature had been sponsored by those Employment Exchanges and prior to their appointment they had been working on daily wages and further that it was the duty of the State Government and its official to obtain roster clearance from the appropriate authority and negligence, if any, could not vitiate the appointment of the petitioners as it was not for the petitioners to obtain roster clearance and on enquiry made from the office of the Director, Science and Technology the petitioners learnt that there are 22 vacant and sanctioned posts of Clerk/ Instructor and Laboratory Assistant against which the petitioners can be conveniently accommodated and further that persons similarly situate have been retained in service and therefore the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 16 of the Constitution have been violated. C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994: 5. In this case 65 petitioners have challenged the orders contained in Memo No. 3765 dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure-7) passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar terminating their services from various posts in the Government Polytechnic in the State. 6. C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994: 5. In this case 65 petitioners have challenged the orders contained in Memo No. 3765 dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure-7) passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar terminating their services from various posts in the Government Polytechnic in the State. 6. The case of the petitioners is that in response to the advertisement published in the English daily 'Hindustan Times' on 14.10.1986 (Annexure-1) they made applications and were also sponsored by the respective Employment Exchanges and after scrutiny of their applications, interview letter were issued and after interview they were appointed in terms of the appointment letters (Annexure-2) on various Class IV and III posts, some in the department and others in the different Polytechnics in the State. However, before the petitioners could report to the places of posting by the order dated 12.7.1987 (Annexure-3) their appointments were cancelled on the ground that the same had been made illegally which had been revealed on an enquiry made by the State Government. The petitioners assert that they had been appointed on regular basis after following the procedure prescribed by the rules and the circulars of the State Government. The petitioners made repeated representations to the concerned authority bringing to their notice that the order dated 12.7.1987 (Annexure-3) had been quashed by this Court in several Writ Petitions and those petitioners had been permitted to join services and therefore the present petitioners are entitled to parity. Since the representation did not evoke any response from the Respondents, the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 1692 of 1993 which was disposed of by the order dated 3.3.1993 (Annexure-5 series). 7. However, perusal of Annexure 5, which is a copy of order dated 23.8.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in M.J.C. No. 1039 of 1993 (Radhey Shyam Mishra and others vs. State of Bihar and others) it appears that this order was passed in contempt case in which the Court directed the Director, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar to dispose of the representation of the petitioners in terms of the order of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. 8. The petitioners accordingly filed another representation before the Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 and since the representations were not decided, the petitioners again filed M.J.C. No. 1639 of 1993 fn which on behalf of the Opposite Parties in the contempt matter Letter No. 3765 dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure-7) issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Science and Technology was brought on record by which the services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners were granted leave to withdraw the contempt petition by the order dated 12.1.1994 (Annexure-8) and to challenge the order dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure-3) in an appropriate proceedings and therefore this Writ Petition. 9. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order of termination dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure-7) is in violation of the order passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions, one of which is C.W.J.C. No. 5706 of 1989 and having been appointed in pursuance of the advertisement and after adhering to the procedure prescribed by law, letters of appointment were issued to the petitioners and therefore it was not open for the respondents to have mechanically terminated the services of the petitioners without considering the reply submitted by them in pursuance• of the notice to show cause. 10. In the Counter Affidavit and in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioners had not been appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.10.1986 and that no Selection Committee had been constituted prior to their appointment and further that roster clearance as regards reservation had not been obtained from the State Government in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department nor was any requisition made from the Employment Exchanges and in pursuance of enquiries - made by the State Government various illegalities and irregularities in the appointment of the petitioners were revealed and therefore instructions were issued by the State Government for terminating the service of the petitioners. 11. In the Supplementary Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent in both the Writ Petitions it has been further explained that the engagement of persons who had completed three years on 1.8.1985 were entitled to be considered for regularisation. 11. In the Supplementary Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent in both the Writ Petitions it has been further explained that the engagement of persons who had completed three years on 1.8.1985 were entitled to be considered for regularisation. It has also been stated that the service of the petitioners were terminated in accordance with law inasmuch as they were served with notices to show cause and after examining their reply and such other relevant materials available on record the services of the petitioners were dispensed with. 12. In the Rejoinder Affidavit and the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it has been claimed that certain persons similarly situate have been permitted to continue but the petitioners have been arbitrarily discriminated by terminating their services. 13. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned senior Advocate for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994 contended that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners is arbitrary which has resulted in denial of the right to livelihood guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and further that when this Court had issued direction to decide the petitioners' representation, the Respondents had to pass the order in a quasi judicial manner. 14. Dr. Sandanand Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994 submitted that the case of the present petitioners is similar to the case of Anil Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar ( 1996(2) P.L.J.R. 193 ) inasmuch as the present petitioners and those in Anil Kumar's case (supra) were appointed in the same transaction and therefore these petitioners are entitled to the same relief as was granted by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra). 15. Mr. K.P. Yadav, learned S.C.V contended that adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and after considering their replies the orders of termination/ cancellation of their appointment were issued in accordance with law and the petitioners had no enforceable legal right to claim employment in view of the fact that before the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994 could have joined their appointments were terminated. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioners in these two Writ Petitions is completely different and distinguishable from the case of the petitioners in Anil Kumar's case (supra) and further that Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.1.1996 is pending in this Court and the said judgment has not attained finality. 16. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference and the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 17. From the material on record it has not been established that the petitioners of the two Writ Petitions had made applications in response to the advertisement dated 14.10.1986 nor the Selection Committee as prescribed by the State Government was ever constituted to consider the suitability of the petitioners for appointment on the post which had been advertised in the advertisement dated 14.10.1986. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-1 series in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994) reveals that after careful examination of the reply submitted by the petitioners, the same were found unsatisfactory and the reasons assigned for terminating their services was that the roster clearance on the point of reservation had not been obtained from the State Government in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, no requisition was made from the respective Employment Exchanges, Selection Committee as required was not constituted for making appointments on the said post and the alleged select list prepared by the Selection Committee was not submitted to the State Government for its approval nor was any interview held prior to the making of appointment and further that the appointment letters had not been issued from the Despatch Register maintained in the department. 18. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994 it has been stated that Sri Harbansh Lal, Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Om Prakash Singh are still continuing in the Government Polytechnic, Jamshedpur who had been appointed along with petitioner no. 18. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994 it has been stated that Sri Harbansh Lal, Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Om Prakash Singh are still continuing in the Government Polytechnic, Jamshedpur who had been appointed along with petitioner no. 1 but it has not been clarified whether these three persons had been appointed on compassionate ground or not and therefore the petitioners cannot claim any parity either with these three persons or with the persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the other Supplementary Affidavit dated 14.3.1996, in paragraph 4 of which the composition of the Selection Committee has been stated to be comprised of Sri Bam Bahadur Singh, Sri D.N. Choudhary, Government Polytechnic. Gulzarbagh, Sri J.N. Singh, Controller of Examination, Sri B.N. Azar, Government Polytechnic, Barauni and Sri S.B.P. Agrawal, Government Polytechnic. Jamshedpur who considered the case of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994 for regularisation of their services and on that basis the petitioners were appointed temporarily on various posts. 19. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents it has been explained that on 8.2.1985 the then Minister directed that those daily wagers who had been engaged against vacant sanctioned Class III post and who had completed three years should be appointed on ad hoc basis and accordingly on 25.8.1985 the Minister gave direction to the said effect which was approved by the Chief Minister on 30.12.1985. However, the then Minister on 20.4.1986 recorded his dissent with regard to making ad hoc appointment. 20. It has been further explained by the Respondents that in continuance of the earlier Notification No. 7260 dated 27.4.1979 which specifically directed that no ad hoc appointment shall be made. Circular No. 3001 dated 16.3.1982 reiterated the same position that no daily wagers should be engaged against the vacant sanctioned post and the prescribed procedure relating to appointment be strictly adhered and this was followed by another direction contained in Letter No. 7639 dated 11.6.1986 of the State Government in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Further the Cabinet Secretariat's direction contained in Circular No. 434 dated 15.3.1995 that the department should make efforts to fill up vacant sanctioned post and that ad hoc appointments made contrary to the direction of the State Government be terminated forthwith. 21. Further the Cabinet Secretariat's direction contained in Circular No. 434 dated 15.3.1995 that the department should make efforts to fill up vacant sanctioned post and that ad hoc appointments made contrary to the direction of the State Government be terminated forthwith. 21. As regards advertisement dated 14.10.1986 it has been explained that 176 posts were advertised in the advertisement issued in June and October, 1986, the break-up of which is as follows : Post No. of post (a) Junior Instructor 82 (b) Draughtsman 10 (c) Senior Mechanic (Chemical) 2 (d) Dresser-cum-compounder 4 (e) Tracer 3 (f) Bus Driver-cum-Mechanic 4 (g) Laboratory Assistant 14 (h) Clerk 52 (i) Steno Typist 5 Total 176 22. The Cabinet on 16.12.1986 took a decision that no department should make appointment to any post without following the prescribed procedure and after obtaining the approval of the Minister incharge even if the posts are temporary or of muster roll. The decision of the Cabinet was circulated amongst all the officers of the department of the Science and Technology vide letter dated 18/20.12.1986 (Annexure-4) and the Finance Department vide its letter no. 8560 dated 30.12.1986 required that it would be necessary for all the departments to seek the approval of the Finance Departments before making any appointment and that all the departments were to give priority to retrenched employees of the Census Department vide Memo No. 858 dated 31.3.1987 (Annexure-B). The composition of Selection Committee is contained in Memo No. 3633 dated 12.11.1987 (Annexure-C) which is as under: (1) Sri B.N. Choudhary, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Patna. (2) Sri B.N. Azad, Acting Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Darbhanga. (3) Sri S.B.P. Agrawal, Acting Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Adityapur. (4) Sri J.N. Singh, Controller of Examination. (5) Sri Bam Bahadur Singh, Assistant Director, Science & Technology Department 23. It is, therefore, evident that the composition of the Selection Committee was notified on 12.11.1987 whereas letters of appointment to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994 were issued between 25.2.1987 to 24.6.1987 (Annexure-3 series) and to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994 between 30.5.1987 to 10.7.1987 (Annexure-2 series) i.e. much prior to the constitution of the Selection Committee. 24. 24. The contention of the petitioners therefore cannot be accepted that their cases have been considered by the duly constituted Selection Committee in view of the fact that Selection Committee was constituted after issuance of the appointment letters to the petitioners and therefore there is no occasion for the duly constituted Selection Committee to consider their cases for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.10.1986. This infirmity alone vitiates the appointment of the petitioners and the letters of appointment issued to them do not confer any enforceable legal right on the petitioners to continue in employment. 25. It has been further explained by the Respondents that 9643 applications were received and after scrutiny interview letters were issued in December, 1987 and January, 1988 to 1298 candidates and out of whom 806 appeared for interview and 158 candidates were placed in the select list i.e. List A and 80 candidates in the waiting list i.e., List B and in March/April 1988 the State Government in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department gave roster clearance for 147 posts in eight cadres and remaining 29 posts (Clerks-17, Laboratory Assistant 7 and Steno Typist-5) were not given roster clearance. The Secretary to the Government in the Department of Science and Technology on 23.12.1987 wrote to the then Director Dr. B.P. Sinha that no appointments were to be made till such time a decision in the matter relating to the appointment of those daily wagers who had been working against sanctioned post was not taken. The State Government gave an assurance in the Legislative Council on 12.7.1988 in relation to 14 daily wagers who were working in various Polytechnics in the State. Explanation has been given as regards appointment of those 14 daily wagers in respect of whom assurance was given by the State Government in the Legislative Council and also the number of persons illegally appointed by the then Director in various Polytechnics in the State. It has been clarified that all the petitioners were engaged on daily wages after the cut off date i.e. after 1.8.1985 and they had therefore no legal right for being considered for regularisation. 26. It has been clarified that all the petitioners were engaged on daily wages after the cut off date i.e. after 1.8.1985 and they had therefore no legal right for being considered for regularisation. 26. As regards the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994 identical stand has been taken by the Respondents and it has been clarified that the said petitioners prior to their illegal appointment were never engaged on daily wages and their case is not similar or identical with the case of the petitioners of Anil Kumar's case (supra). 27. From the averments made in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994, it is evident that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 1994 claim to have been appointed for first time in pursuance on Annexure-2 series between 30.5.1987 to 10.7.1987 and prior to the said appointments they were not working on daily wages and it is, therefore, absolutely clear that the petitioners were engaged on daily wages after the cut off date i.e. 1.8.1985 contrary to the Government order and thus their engagements/appointments are illegal. 28. Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) is of no assistance as in that case, on the basis of the materials on record, it was held that those petitioners had been engaged on daily wages in March, 1985 i.e. prior to the cut off date (1.8.1985) and the matter of their regularisation was also raised on the floor of the Assembly yet the advertisement dated 14.10.1986 was issued in the English Daily 'Hindustan Times' for appointment of 52 Clerks in different Polytechnic Colleges in the State and they were eventually appointed on temporary basis but their services were terminated. By an order dated 14th July, 1987 by the judgment and order dated 11.10.1991 in C.W.J.C. No. 5706 of 1989 the termination order dated 14th July, 1987 was quashed and liberty was granted to the Respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which was done by a show cause notice dated 23.6.1992 to which those petitioners submitted their reply and ultimately by the order dated 20.11.1992 the Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar accepted the reply submitted by those petitioners and regularised their services by the said order and eventually their services were again terminated and in these circumstances it was held that when no fresh material was available with the State Government and once the decision have been taken to regularise their services, their services could not be terminated and therefore those petitioners were directed to be reinstated with the condition that they shall be paid 50% of the back wages. 29. The facts of the present case, as noticed above, are quite different from that of Anil Kumar's case (supra). 30. One Rameshwar Ojha filed C.W.J.C. No. 8624 of 1994 which was decided on 20.12.1995, the facts of which are identical with the present case and no relief was granted to Rameshwar Ojha and this Court refused to interfere with order of termination. Rameshwar Ojha then preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1996 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 26.2.1997 permitting Rameshwar Ojha to withdraw the Appeal and the Court observed that since Rameshwar Ojha worked for a considerable time, if in future advertisement is issued for making appointment, the Appellant (Rameshwar Ojha) may apply for the same and the age bar in relation to the Appellant shall be relaxed. In yet another matter in C.W.J.C. No. 5459 of 1995 (Pramod Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others) decided on 25.3.1996 this Court refused to interfere with the order of termination and the facts of the said case appear to be similar to the facts of the present case. 31. A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.2.1994 (Annexure-1 series in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994) reveals that the explanation of the petitioners was• found to be unsatisfactory and reasons for terminating the services of the petitioners have been assigned. 31. A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.2.1994 (Annexure-1 series in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994) reveals that the explanation of the petitioners was• found to be unsatisfactory and reasons for terminating the services of the petitioners have been assigned. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 would not sit in Appeal and review the decision taken by the Authorities but is entitled to enquire whether the decision making process is in accordance with law. Admittedly the petitioners' explanations were considered and reasons for termination have been assigned and this is, therefore, sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity. 32. In view of the above discussions, the petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief. 33. In the result the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.