Order There are five petitioners in this case, namely, Arun Kumar, Mani Prasad, Neeraj Kumar, Baliram Paswan and Devan Prasad. 2. By the order, contained in Memo No. 704 dated 21st December 96, while services of petitioners 1 to 4 were termination along with others, the services of petitioners no.5 terminated vide letter no. 707 dated 7th September 96. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the respective petitioners. 3. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 4. From the pleading made by the petitioner and the enclosures attached to the writ petition, it appears that the power of appointment against Class-IV post was earlier vested with the Regional Director, Animal Husbandary. Such power of appointment was subsequently taken back since 28th October 91 from the Regional Director. 5. It further appears that the question relating to legality of appointment of Class-IV employees fell for consideration before the state and its authorities. It came to their notice that large number of Class-IV employees were appointed even after 28th October 91 by the Regional Officers, though they had no such power. For the said reason, the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department issued directions vide letter Nos. 2084 dated 16th April, 96. 4147 dated 1st Nov., 96, and Memo No. 6778 dated 6th December, 96 and ordered to remove those appointed by Regional Officer after 28th October, 91. 6. Giving reference of aforesaid letters, the services of petitioners 1 to 4 have been terminated along with others vide impugned Memo No. 704 dated 21st December, 96 (Annexure-9). Similar order in respect of petitioner no.5 has been issued, vide letter No. 707 dated 7th September, 96 (Annexure-12). 7. Counsel for the State submitted that large number of illegal appointments were made by Regional Directors. Even in absence of vacant post, appointments were made without following the procedure. It is alleged that the appointment of petitioners being illegal, the impugned orders of termination have been issued. 8. From the pleading made by the petitioners and the enclosures attached thereto, it appears that the 1st petitioner, Arun Kumar was a daily wage employee, whose service was regularised and given appointment, vide memo dated 25th October, 91 (Annexure-1), issued by the Regional Director, Magadh Range, Gaya. 9. Petitioner Nos. 8. From the pleading made by the petitioners and the enclosures attached thereto, it appears that the 1st petitioner, Arun Kumar was a daily wage employee, whose service was regularised and given appointment, vide memo dated 25th October, 91 (Annexure-1), issued by the Regional Director, Magadh Range, Gaya. 9. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Mani Prasad and Neeraj Kumar were also working on daily wage basis and their services were regularised/appointed vide common order dated 27th October, 91 (Annexure-3) by the Regional Director, Magadh Range, Gaya. 10. The petitioner no.4, Baliram Paswan was appointed vide order dated 26th October, 91 (Annexure-5) by the Regional Director, Magadh Range, Gaya. 11. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. 12. Thereby, it will be evident that all the petitioners 1 to 4 were appointed prior to 28th October, 91 and thereby the grounds shown in terminating their services are nonest as shown in the order dated 21st December, 96. 13. As only one ground given in the order of termination that they are appointed after 28th October, 91, the respondents, at this stage, by filing counter affidavit cannot be allowed to include more ground in the said order. 14. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 21st December, 96 being based on nonest ground, so far as it, relates to petitioners 1 to 4, I set aside the said order. 15. So far as petitioner no.5, Devan Prasad is concerned, admittedly, he has been appointed in the year 1997. 16. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the termination order, as issued on 7th September, 96 (Annexure-12). 17. Prayer, so far as it relates to petitioner No.5 is concerned, is thereby rejected. 18. The writ petition stands disposed of in favour of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and against petitioner no.5.