ORDER This case is one of a kind which shows how litigation is generated by the State Government departments. Irresponsible affidavits, with no responsibility in the pleading which are made, circumstances not fortified by facts, cluttering the High Court with pending cases of State litigation which could conveniently engage the attention of the Bihar Administrative Tribunal, which has conveniently been closed down, a working institution ordained by an Act of legislature, like several State institutions in the State. 2. This is a case of a vaccinator. They were employed in 1976. They worked continuously. All of a sudden they were told that they are tenure appointees. Nothing has been shown on record that at the time when they were given their appointments it was limited to a tenure. Twenty years of service gave them scale, increments, promotions. In so far as their pay sheet records were concerned, there were columns, one shows set substantive, the other set officiating. These employees were shown in a scale in the subhead : substantive. They made contributions from their salaries to the provident fund, gratuity etc. 3. The fact that they were intimated that their services are no longer required only shows another scandal within the State, perhaps, one government did not like the appointment which were made by the previous government and so readily wanted to dispose off on one lot so that another lot could be recruited. This in Bihar is taking the shape of scams also to make a business out of giving naukri in Bihar may be lurking. But, then the giver and the taker both must go. The officer and the employee recruited. 4. If this situation continues with irresponsible pleadings on behalf of the State not replying the specifically to the facts in the petition then the day is not far that the Law Secretary will have to sit in court every day. Everything is acknowledged that these employees had worked for two decades. They received their annual increments, time bound promotions, opening of their service books, deductions towards general provident fund, contribution to the Life Insurance Corporation and these facts are given in the counter affidavit. Then the respondent who sworn an affidavit, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Gaya mentions that "he further reserves right to file a detailed and elaborate counter affidavit as an occasion arises". When exactly will the occasion arise to give details. Then the respondent who sworn an affidavit, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Gaya mentions that "he further reserves right to file a detailed and elaborate counter affidavit as an occasion arises". When exactly will the occasion arise to give details. All the details are within the possession of the administration. For here was the time to give every detail to confront the petitioner that what he is saying is not correct. If what he says is acknowledged then why the litigation. 5. The order of the learned Judge not having notice these facts is an error. In fact it is manifest error that on admitted facts the petition was dismissed. The order dated 22 September, 1997 is, thus, set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to continuity of service. 6. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout with special cost to each of the two respondents standing at Rs. 500 each. 7. Further, the court warns the State Government not to generate litigations. The responsibility to retain an employee in service or kick him out falls solely on the administration but it must be for stated reasons with justified accountability and objectivity. The question is not that the High Court has ordered it so. The Law Secretary may himself see on what the petition is about and the shabby way in which the counter affidavit was presented on whoever did it. 8. The appeal succeeds. A copy of this order may be sent by the Registrar General to the Law Secretary, Government of Bihar. The latter in turn will explain to the Hon'ble Chief Minister how her State Government litigates.