Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-5 which is an office order dated 18-7-2002, by which in view of Screening Committee report services of the petitioners and others, total 13 in number were not found fit for absorption as their appointment letter has been found forged and babricated. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court towards the fact that the Screening Committee report itself would go to show that the appointment letters of these petitioners which were called for were not produced. Similarly it has been contended that as the appointment letter and service book was not available, the Screening Committee has raised doubt about their appointments. Relying on the said report, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 has been passed. A reply to the counter-affidavit had been filed yesterday in Court to show that service book of all the petitioners had been opened and were available and copies thereof have been brought on record. Annexure-1 series are the appointment letters of the petitioners. These have been brought on record to show the genuineness of their appointment and also to show that they had also been regularised by the competent authority in the year 1980 when other such similarly situated persons were regularised who have been found fit for absorption. 3. The aforesaid arguments have been made by the petitioners Counsel to bring at home the point that had an opportunity been provided to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order, they had satisfied the authorities that their appointment letters were genuine and service book was opened and they had been regularised. It has further been contended that today after more than 22 years of service whether the petitioners can be thrown away only by saying that the appointment letters were not genuine, would not be violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and as to whether a personal notice is required to them or not before passing an order which is adverse to them and takes away their vested right as they have been getting their salary for the last 22 years. 4. 4. Learned Counsel forthe State, on the other hand, has relied upon the Screening Committee report to show that inspite of opportunities being provided, the service book and the appointment letters of the petitioners could not be produced either by the Executive Engineer or the petitioners, which have been brought on record in the writ application and reply to the counter-affidavit. These are factual aspects of the matter. This cannot adjudicated and looked into by the Court regarding genuineness of these documents. As by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 a vested right of the petitioners was being taken away, an opportunity was required to be provided, as such, this Court is of the view that before passing any order regarding genuineness of appointment letter of the petitioners, petitioners are required to be heard. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the Respondent No. 4. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to provide an opportunity to the petitioners and allow them to adduce evidence orally and documentary in support of their contention and after considering the same he shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law assigning reasons for coming to those conclusions. This Court feels that the Secretary should fix 24 February, 2003 as the date on which day the petitioners shall appear and file their show cause along with supporting documents to show the genuineness of their appointment letter. The Secretary on that day himself or his nominee shall either hear them or fix a date in their presence for the next hearing so that the matter can be decided and concluded at the earliest. As this order has been passed in presence of Counsel for the parties, Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to communicate this date to the petitioners. 6. Annexure-5 so far it relates to the petitioners stands quashed. It goes without saying that if the petitioners have worked for any period for which the salary has not been paid, the same has to be calculated in accordance with law and paid to the petitioners. 7. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.