Judgment RAVI S.DHAVAN and C.J JJ. 1. These three letters patent appeals which arise out these writ petitions against two decisions but similar issues one is dated September 3, 1996, passed in CWJC No. 8210 of 1995 Umesh Sharma and others V/s. State of Bihar and others. The others are in CWJC No. 10350 of 1995 and CWJC No. 10363 of 1995 both dated February 5, 1997. Petitioners are in three sets of petitions and their date of appointments are given as below: @@@840.htm@@@ 2. The issue is about vaccinators who were required by the State administration for employment on an advertisement. In pursuance of the advertisement the petitioners applied. It is on record that some had made applications after they had been recommended by the State Employment Exchange. The first batch of recruitment was done in the year 1978. Each of the Vaccinators, so recruited, had worked for two years. Their service books had been opened. Deduction had been made from their salary and credited to their provident fund account. They received increments. When the petitioners desired regularisation and time bound promotion, an issue was raised much after the recruitment that their employment itself was irregular. It needs to be recorded that some of the petitioners had even received time bound promotion. 2. A fact not to be overlooked is that during the year 1985-86 the district of Gaya witnessed a Cholera epidemic. All the petitioners were recruited in the district of Gaya to deal with this Cholera epidemic to take prophylactic measures. To meet this emergency, the petitioners were recruited on different dates. Vaccination is continuing process and a permanent plan of the State Health Services, The circumstances that an epidemic took place, itself shows that there may have been a let and slackness in the preventive measures. 3. The petitioners contended that they had been issued appointment letters. Their service books had been opened. There was no issue that they had not been recruited. The immediate need to recruit them was the Cholera epidemic within the district of Gaya. The Original appointment letters had been sought and it is on record that they were in the custody of a clerk. This clerk suppressed the records and misplaced them. The State respondents suspended this clerk. There was no issue that they had not been recruited. The immediate need to recruit them was the Cholera epidemic within the district of Gaya. The Original appointment letters had been sought and it is on record that they were in the custody of a clerk. This clerk suppressed the records and misplaced them. The State respondents suspended this clerk. The best evidence lay with the respondents themselves, the issue that the clerk had destroyed the records is a matter for the respondents to enquire into. The petitioners submit that another set of appointment in lieu of the petitioner was being attempted surreptitiously. 4. If the contention is that appointments were illegal then there was no occasion to process the appointment, open the service books, make deductions from the salary of incumbents for crediting to the provident fund account. At the expense of repetition it is on record that the services of the petitioners have also been utilised as vaccinators when the district of Gaya faced a Cholera epidemic. 5. It is a shabby defence that appointments were illegal. The fact that a clerk has been suspended is not an answer which inspires confidence. Indeed if these appointments had been made illegally, as is now being contended, then the burden must lie very heavily on top of the administration between the Secretary and the Director General, Health Services and the District Administration which made the recruitment. Indeed all are responsible and all must be visited with either suspension or dismissal along with the clerk. If an inquiry is to be made then everyone connected with these appointments must be inquired threadbare. An inquiry on a clerk will not do. 6. Nothing has been presented before the Court that the recruitment as was made, for the purpose it was, made and under the exigencies when made was bad. Another aspect on the record which cannot be ignored is that the Deputy Development Commissioner by his report dated February 4, 1989 (Annexure 27 to CWJC No. 8210 of 1995) had recorded that the appointments and consequential promotion had been made correctly. Subsequently, the Civil Surgeon by his report dated September 20, 1990 (Annexure 14 to CWJC No. 8210 of 1995) reiterated that upon the matter beingt examined he found that there was no irregularity in the appointment of vaccinators. 7. Subsequently, the Civil Surgeon by his report dated September 20, 1990 (Annexure 14 to CWJC No. 8210 of 1995) reiterated that upon the matter beingt examined he found that there was no irregularity in the appointment of vaccinators. 7. In the circumstances, the Court does not find (sic) any valid reason to permit the termination orders which visited the vaccinators, to remain. Services of the petitioners were terminated illegally. In totality of the circumstances of the record and on the light of this observation made in this order, the judgment dated September 3, 1996 is set aside. 8. The Letters Patent Appeals are allowed.