JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. On account of commonality of facts and law both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. (W.P.(S) No. 1667 of 2004) 2.. Petitioner, in this case, after acquiring Post Graduation Degree and B.Ed applied for selection/appointment for the post of. Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School. Pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 21.4.2003, issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, she was issued admit card and written test was conducted. On 14.11.2003, merit list of successful candidates was issued wherein petitioner was declared successful in Scheduled Tribe category. She was placed in merit position no. 193. On the basis of selection and verification of testimonials petitioner came to be appointed vide order dated 21.12.2003. Her name figures at Sl. No. 35 of the-appointment order. She was posted at the Govt. Primary School, Jaranga, Angara, District- Ranchi. Pursuant to her appointment, she joined the post on 29.12.2003. Petitioner was served with an order dated 17.2.2004 issued by District. Superintendent of Education, Ranchi terminating her services (W.P.(S) No. 1452 of 2004) 3. Petitioner, in this case, is a graduate in Science and also acquired B.Ed qualification. He also applied for selection for the post of Assistant Teacher in response to Jharkhand Public Service Commissions advertisement dated 21.4.2003. On being issued admit card, he participated in the written test conducted by the Commission. He was declared successful in general category with merit position at No. 58. This petitioner was appointed on 21.12.2003 and joined the post on 24.12.2003 at Middle School Mandro, Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi. Petitioner was served with the order dated 28.2.2004 issued by the Area Education Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, whereby his service has been terminated under the orders of District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi vide Memo No. 6 17 dated 17.2.2004. A copy of the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi was also served upon the petitioner. 4. Services of both the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that they do not fulfil the requirements as laid down in Rule-2(b) of the Jharkhand Elementary School Appointment. Rules, 2002. It is also mentioned that in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee held on 16.2.2004 it was decided to terminate the services of illegal appointees with effect from the date of their appointment. Rules, 2002. It is also mentioned that in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee held on 16.2.2004 it was decided to terminate the services of illegal appointees with effect from the date of their appointment. Petitioners have challenged the orders of their termination referred to above with a. direction to reinstate them on the posts of Assistant Teacher on the basis of their appointment and allow all consequential benefits. 5. Though separate counter-affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions, the ground common to both the petitioners is that they acquired Teachers Training i.e. Training Examination/B.Ed./Dip. in Education after the last dare of submission of application form. It is mentioned that the last date of submission of application form was 30.9.2002 Petitioner-Kumari Nupur Ekka passed her training examination in April, 2003 being shown dated 27.11.2003 Petitioner-Syed Wasim is also said to have passed the training examination on 21.4.2003 and it is accordingly mentioned that both the petitioners have acquired the essential qualification after the cut off date for receipt of applications, they were ineligible for appointment. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. As far the factual averments made in the writ petition are concerned, there is no dispute. Petitioners have also placed on record their testimonials of acquiring B.Ed. and other training courses. Petitioner Kumari Nupur Ekka acquired B.Ed. degree from Banaras Hindu University. It appears that result was declared on 1.1.7.2003 and mark-sheet was issued later. Even provisional certificate was issued on 27.11.2003 in respect to the examination held in April, 2003. Similarly, petitioner Syed Wasim passed B.Ed. examination from University of Delhi in the year 2003. Mark-sheet was issued to him on 18.7.2003 whereas provisional certificate was issued on 19.7.2003 in respect to examination held in April, 2003. Undisputedly the last date of submission of application form was 30.9.2002. From the impugned order dated 17.2.2001, it appears that only ground for termination of the services of the petitioner is non-fulfillment of Rule-2(b) of the Jharkhand Elementary School Appointment Rules, 2002. Rule-2 reads as under: 2. Paribhashayen-(ka) "prarambhik vidyalaya" se abhipret hai satwen warg tak ke aise vidyalaya jo Jharkhand gair-sarkari prarambhik vidyalaya (niyantran- grahan) adhiniyam, 2001 ke tahat rajya sarkar dwara adhigrihit hai ya kholey gaye hain, (kha) "prashikshit" se abhipret hai waise wyakti jo manyata prapt prashikshan sansthan se nimna prashikshan prapt aur uttirna ho. Rule-2 reads as under: 2. Paribhashayen-(ka) "prarambhik vidyalaya" se abhipret hai satwen warg tak ke aise vidyalaya jo Jharkhand gair-sarkari prarambhik vidyalaya (niyantran- grahan) adhiniyam, 2001 ke tahat rajya sarkar dwara adhigrihit hai ya kholey gaye hain, (kha) "prashikshit" se abhipret hai waise wyakti jo manyata prapt prashikshan sansthan se nimna prashikshan prapt aur uttirna ho. (i) do warsiya shikshak prashikshan, athwa (ii) B.Ed./Dip in Ed/Dip in Teach. (iii) C.P.Ed./Dip. P. Ed 8. From perusal of this Rule, it is revealed that qualifications have been provided for recruitment and under Rule-2(b) the expression "Trained" has been defined to being a person who have two years teacher training or B.Ed./Dip. in Ed./Dip. In Teaching/ C.P.Ed/Dip. P.Ed. from the recognized institutions. In the impugned order, it is nowhere stated that petitioners lack the requisite qualification. No ground has been indicated in the impugned orders though in the counter affidavit new ground has been mentioned that they acquired the qualifications after the last date of making applications. Honble Supreme Court in case of Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University 85 others reported in 1998(7) Supreme 361 has held that even where the selection/appointment is contrary to Act, statute, rule or regulation principles of natural justice are required to he observed. It is also settled law that the validity of the action is required to be tested on the grounds indicated in the order initiating action and the ground cannot be altered or supplemented by pleadings in the Court, Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. , Supreme Court held: 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds its validity must be judged by the reasons so-mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional ground later brought out. 9. In the present case, principles of natural justice have not been observed before terminating the services of the petitioners. Grounds for termination in the impugned orders are different, than contained in the counter. Respondents may have valid reasons to dispense with the services of the petitioners but they are bound to observe the principles of natural justice which they have not. Grounds for termination in the impugned orders are different, than contained in the counter. Respondents may have valid reasons to dispense with the services of the petitioners but they are bound to observe the principles of natural justice which they have not. These petitions are accordingly allowed. Impugned orders of termination are quashed and consequently respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners forthwith. Respondents are however at liberty to initiate action after observing principles of natural justice and by following rules.