Judgment 1. In both the cases, as common question is involved and similar orders of termination are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner, Birendra Prasad Singh (of C.W.J.C. no. 5692/98) was initially appointed as peon on provisional basis for six months by order dated 31.3.1983 passed by Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagmati Project, Sitamarhi, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department of the State of Bihar. Subsequently, he was transferred by Director, Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition, Irrigation vide order dated 31.5.1984 whereinafter on the recommendation of the establishment committee, he was appointed as adhoc basis to the post of Amin vide order dated 20.12.1988 passed by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation. So far as petitioner-Pawan Kumar Lal Karna and 12 other petitioners (of C.W.J.C. no. 5964/98) are concerned, they were appointed on 9.2.1985 and 31.3.1989. While petitioner-Suresh Rajwar, Kailash Chaudhary, Bimlesh Singh, Dhaneshwar Singh, Sudhir Kr. Singh and Pawan Kr. Lal Karn were appointed on 9.2.1985, the rest of the petitioners, Bharat Kr. Rai, Deo Kumar Singh, Anil Kr. Singh, Umesh Singh, Suresh Pd. Singh, Devendra Pd. Srivastava were appointed on 31.3.1989. Their appointments were made against class-IV posts of chain man, treasure guard, Amin etc. The orders of appointment were issued by the Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Ranchi/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Project, Darbhanga. While the petitioners were functioning, they were noticed as to why their services be not terminated, having appointed illegally. The main ground shown therein was that the special Land Acquisition Officer, who appointed the petitioners, had no jurisdiction to make appointment against the posts. On receipt of such reply, some of the petitioners replied whereinafter the impugned orders were issued terminating the services of petitioners. By Memo no. 579 dated 5.6.1998, the services of petitioner-Birendra Prasad Singh was terminated. On the other hand, the services of other petitioner were also terminated by common order dated 1.6.1998. In both the orders the sole ground shown to declare the appointments of petitioners as illegal is that the authority, who appointed them, had no jurisdiction. The petitioners enclosed a decision of the State contained in letter no. 53 dated 18.2.1978. By the said letter, the officers of the Irrigation Department were delegated with the power to make appointment against Class-Ill & IV posts. The petitioners enclosed a decision of the State contained in letter no. 53 dated 18.2.1978. By the said letter, the officers of the Irrigation Department were delegated with the power to make appointment against Class-Ill & IV posts. Power for appointment of Grade-Ill & IV employees in the establishment of individual office against sanctioned post was delegated to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the department. Refering the aforesaid delegation of power, petitioners have taken plea that the authority, who appointed them, had jurisdiction to make such appointment. 3. Initially, the respondents in their counter-affidavit alleged various irregularities in the matter of appointment of petitioners, total procedure have not followed. However, as no such ground was shown in the order of termination, supplementary counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of respondents. Counsel for the State submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was merely delegated with power to make appointment against Grade-Ill & IV posts in his office. He had no jurisdiction to make appointment in the establishment of Rehabilitation Office. Referring one or other letter of appointment of petitioners showing their appointments made in the Rehabilitation office, it was submitted that the appointments of petitioners were illegal. 4. This Court vide earlier order asked the counsel for the State to file further affidavit on the question as to whether there were two offices/establishment of Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer or not. In pursuance of Courts order, a supplementary counter- affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. no. 5692/98. Therein, it is stated that the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagmati Project is completely independent and separate establishment which was transferred to Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project no. 1, Chaibasa under notification no. 4869 dated 5.7.1983. Reference of one or other letter issued in between 1989-91 have been made at para-3 to the said affidavit to show that the office of rehabilitation officers is an independent and separate establishment. 5. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the State cannot be accepted for the reasons as shown hereunder : The letter of appointment issued in favour of Birendra Prasad Singh and other petitioners show that they were appointed by an officer, who was holding dual charge with designation of Rehabilitation-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer. 5. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the State cannot be accepted for the reasons as shown hereunder : The letter of appointment issued in favour of Birendra Prasad Singh and other petitioners show that they were appointed by an officer, who was holding dual charge with designation of Rehabilitation-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer. Though in the order of appointment of one or other petitioner like Birendra Prasad Singh, it was shown to have been made in the Rehabilitation office, in the cases of others like petitioner- Umesh Singh made vide order dated 31.3.1989 they were appointed in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer. The cadre of both the establishment is common will be evident from the fact that the petitioner-Birendra Prasad Singh, who was initially appointed in the office of Rehabilitation officer was given appointment subsequently in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sakri vide Directors letter dated 20.12.1986. Said Birendra Prasad Singh was again transferred to the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer vide subsequent order dated 6.1.1989. By the said order, a number of persons were posted in the Rehabilitation Office and they were transferred to Special Land Acquisition Office and vice versa. This clearly shows that the cardre of ministerial employees including the class-IV employees of Special Land Acquisition Officer and Rehabilitation officer was common, the appointing authority being Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Rehabilitation Officer. 6. This apart, I find that the respondents failed to take into consideration the other relevant facts relating to petitioners. For example, the petitioner-Birendra Prasad Singh was appointed sub-sequently as Amin by the order of Director, Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition vide order dated 20.12.1988 but such order of subsequent appointment was not taken into consideration while the impugned orders were passed. The non-application of mind on the part of the respondents will be also evident from the fact that in respect of 10 persons including petitioner-Pawan Kumar Lal Karna and some others, it is stated that the Rehabilitation officer had no power to make appointment, whereas in the case of others, it was stated that the Land Acquisition Officer had no such power to make appointment. The power as was delegated to the officer vide letter dated 18.12.1978 was not taken into consideration, nor they took into consideration that the appointments were provisional in nature. The power as was delegated to the officer vide letter dated 18.12.1978 was not taken into consideration, nor they took into consideration that the appointments were provisional in nature. Thereby, without making any distinction between two sets of employees appointed in one or other office/establishment, without taking into consideration as to whether the cadre of both the offices are joint or not and who is/was the competent authority to make appointment in one or other office the impugned orders were passed. This apart, I find that the petitioners have already continued in the services of the State for more than 9 to 15 years, but the same was not taken into consideration before disturbing them from their service. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the impugned order dated 5.6.1998 so far as it relates to petitioner-Birendra Prasad Singh and the order dated 1.6.1998 so far it relates to petitioner- Pawan Kumar Lal Kama and others. 8. The writ petitions are allowed.