JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. By Court The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the Memo No. 336, dated 31.07.2002 as contained in Annexure - 7 to the writ application, passed by the respondent no. 6 - Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka whereby, the services of the petitioner was terminated from the service on the ground that his initial appointment itself was illegal. It was said that the petitioner could not produce any documents in connection with his appointment and that the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka had no authority or jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner to the post of Stenographer a Grade - III post and further that the appointment was made without following the due process for appointment. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner as submitted by Mrs. Vandana Singh is that before issuance of Annexure - 7, no enquiry of any kind with regard to validity or legality of appointment of the petitioner was made by any of the competent authority. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted an application along with relevant documents including that of his appointment letter to show that he was legally and validly appointed but the same was not considered and the impugned order terminating his services has been passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 3. Dr. M.K. Laik, Sr. S.C. - I appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was illegal because it was made without following the due procedure and norms of appointment and that also without any advertisement. It was further stated that the petitioner was appointed by the then Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, who had no authority or jurisdiction to make such appointment. He further submitted that notice was given to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents but the petitioner failed to do so and thereafter by Annexure - 7, the petitioner was terminated from the service. Dr. Laik further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Honble Court without availing the remedy to appeal as provided in the Rule and therefore, this writ application was not maintainable because the petitioner had the alternative remedy. 4. In reply to the submissions of Dr. Laik, Mrs. Dr. Laik further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Honble Court without availing the remedy to appeal as provided in the Rule and therefore, this writ application was not maintainable because the petitioner had the alternative remedy. 4. In reply to the submissions of Dr. Laik, Mrs. Vandana Singh has relied on the decision of Honble Patna High Court in the case of Braj Kishore Pd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2005(3) PLJR 375 , it has been held that the Regional Directors, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar had the authority and jurisdiction to make appointment in Grade - III posts prior to the cut-off date i.e. 21.02.1992. It is further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure - 2 to the writ application prior to 21.02.1992 i.e. on 10.01.1989 and therefore, definitely the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka had the authority to appoint the petitioner to the post of Stenographer which was a Grade - III post. 5. Considering the rival contention of the parties and after perusal of the documents annexed with the writ application as well as the counter affidavit, I find that prior to issuance of Annexure - 7 i.e. the order terminating the service of the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity of hearing or to show-cause was not given to the petitioner and therefore, issuance of Annexure-7 was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, the order as contained in Annexure - 7 terminating the petitioner cannot be sustained, consequently, Memo No. 336, dated 31.07.2002 as contained in Annexure - 7 is hereby quashed. 6. So far as the question of legality or validity of the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, in my view the same requires to be properly enquired into by a competent authority. 7. In this view of. the matter, the matter is remitted back to the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Jharkhand who shall make a fresh enquiry with regard to legality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner. The Director shall allow the petitioner to submit show-cause along with all relevant documents etc. 7. In this view of. the matter, the matter is remitted back to the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Jharkhand who shall make a fresh enquiry with regard to legality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner. The Director shall allow the petitioner to submit show-cause along with all relevant documents etc. in support of his case and then the Director shall pass a reasoned speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of submission of the show-cause of the petitioner. 8. So far the question of monetary benefits to the petitioner is concerned, the same shall be subject to result of the abovementioned enquiry. If the Director finds that the appointment of the petitioner was legal and valid, then he shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.