JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. Aggrieved of their termination vide order No. 91(8) dated 14 th May, 2003 and consequential Memo No. 99 dated 25 th June, 2003, petitioners have filed these writ petitions, challenging the same and have also prayed for various consequential reliefs, including salary for the period indicated in the writ petitions. 2. The grounds of termination, indicated in the impugned order dated 14 th May, 2003, are: (a) No advertisement for appointment was published; (b) Names were not obtained from local Employment Exchange on the basis of qualifications fixed in the advertisement; (c) Selection Committee was not constituted by competent authority; (d) No roster clearance was done by the competent authority; (e) No reservation Policy was followed after point wise roster clearance; & (f) The circular issued for appointment was not followed. 3. While disputing all the grounds, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that their appointments were made in accordance with law and the grounds shown for terminating the services of the petitioners do not exist. It is useful to notice certain important and relevant facts on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The then State of Bihar vide its Circular No. 432 dated 4 th July, 1983 notified the procedure for appointment in Class-III and Class-IV posts in Ayurvedic, Homeopathic and other institutions in the State. In terms of the aforesaid circular, Class-III and Class-IV posts were required to be filled up district-wise through Employment Exchange by making requisition to the concerned Employment Exchange, asking for list of eligible candidates. On receipt of list, a Selection Board was required to be constituted and after fixing the norms, selection was to be made on the basis of interview by observing roster system. It is the case of the petitioners that they were duly registered with the Employment Exchange, Dumka. The District Indigenous Officer, Dumka, sent requisition to the Employment Exchange, Dumka for forwarding the names of eligible candidates vide his letter No. 63 dated 30 th April, 1986. In response to the said letter, the Deputy Director of Employment Exchange, Dumka, vide his letter No. 715 dated 20 th May, 1986 forwarded the names of as many as fourteen persons with their particulars to the District Indigenous Officer. In response to the said letter, the Deputy Director of Employment Exchange, Dumka, vide his letter No. 715 dated 20 th May, 1986 forwarded the names of as many as fourteen persons with their particulars to the District Indigenous Officer. W.P. (S) No. 4332 of 2003: Amongst 14 persons the name of the petitioner in this writ petition was at serial No. 3 of the list. The District Indigenous Officer also sent requisition to the District Employment Exchange Offices at Sahibganj, Deoghar, Gooda, Lalmatia and other districts of Santhal Parganas. Petitioners name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange. He was asked to appear for interview on 16 th June, 1986 vide letter No. 99 dated 10 th June, 1986, issued by the District Indigenous Officer, Dumka. It is stated that the petitioner participated in the interview, which was scheduled to be conducted on 16 th June, 1986 and postponed to 20 th June, 1986. The Selection Committee after interviewing the eligible candidates prepared a merit list and also applied the reservation roster. Petitioners name figured at serial Nos. 1 of the merit list against the Extremely Backward Class. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the District Indigenous Officer appointed the petitioner and other candidates vide Memo Nos. 106 dated 21 st June, 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at Gopikandar, Futolvona, Dumka. Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted his joining report in the office of District Indigenous Officer, Dumka on 30 th June, 1986. Vide Memo No. 118 dated 30 th June, 1986 petitioner was asked to join on the post of Mishrak. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 12 dated 13 th January, 1987 he was transferred to State Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya, Taljhari, Sahibganj. However, petitioners joining at the transferred place was not accepted and he was sent back to Gopikandar, Dumka. In the year, 1996 petitioner was granted time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- with effect from 28 th June, 1996 vide Memo No. 49 dated 27 th July, 1996. W.P. (S) No. 4391 of 2003: In this writ petition, amongst 14 persons the name of the petitioner was at serial No. 5 of the list, forwarded by the Employment Exchange. He was asked to appear for interview on 16 th June, 1986 vide letter No. 99 dated 10 th June, 1986, issued by the District Indigenous Officer, Dumka. W.P. (S) No. 4391 of 2003: In this writ petition, amongst 14 persons the name of the petitioner was at serial No. 5 of the list, forwarded by the Employment Exchange. He was asked to appear for interview on 16 th June, 1986 vide letter No. 99 dated 10 th June, 1986, issued by the District Indigenous Officer, Dumka. It is stated that the petitioner participated in the interview, which was scheduled to be conducted on 16 th June, 1986 and postponed to 20 th June, 1986. The Selection Committee after interviewing the eligible candidates prepared a merit list and also applied the reservation roster. Petitioners name figured at serial No. 3 of the merit list against the Extremely Backward Class. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the District Indigenous Officer appointed the petitioner and other candidates vide Memo No. 105 dated 21 st June, 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at Government Homeopathic Hospital, Littipara, in the district of Sahibganj. Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted his joining report in the office of District Indigenous Officer, Dumka on 23 rd June, 1986. Vide Memo No. 114 dated 23 rd June, 1986 petitioner was asked to join on the post. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 39 dated 6 th March, 1987 he was transferred to Rajkiya Homeopathic Aushdhalaya at Chainpur. However, petitioners joining at the transferred place was not accepted and he was sent back to Gamharia Rajkiya Homeopathic Aushdhalaya. In the year, 1996 petitioner was granted time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-with effect from 23 rd June, 1996 vide Memo No. 4 dated 27 th July, 1996. 4. After re-organization of the then State of Bihar, District Indigenous Officer vide letter No. 111 dated 27 th August, 2001 requested the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, to make enquiry regarding the appointment of the petitioners and other appointees. A report was asked from the District Indigenous Officer who had issued the appointment letters. One Buddhdeo Sharma, who had appointed the petitioners and retired, submitted a report to the District Indigenous Officer, Dumka, who reported that the Selection Committee was made in accordance with circular No. 432 dated 4 th July, 1983 and the record is with the concerned office. However, some records were forwarded. 5. It appears that some appointees, namely, Md. One Buddhdeo Sharma, who had appointed the petitioners and retired, submitted a report to the District Indigenous Officer, Dumka, who reported that the Selection Committee was made in accordance with circular No. 432 dated 4 th July, 1983 and the record is with the concerned office. However, some records were forwarded. 5. It appears that some appointees, namely, Md. Kalimuddin and others, filed W.P.(S) No. 5848 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Director, Health and Family Welfare, to look into the matter and make enquiry about the validity of appointment. The Director consequently made an enquiry and submitted report to the Government vide his Memo No. 1 dated 29 th January, 2002 and Memo No. 10 dated 15 th March, 2002. In this report petitioners appointment was verified to be valid. Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4332 of 2003 was not paid his salary for August, September and October, 2000 and May, 2001 till the date of filing the writ petition, except for the months of March, 2003 to 14 th May, 2003 whereas petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4391 of 2003 was not paid salary for the months of June, 2001 and July, 2001. They, accordingly, filed W.P.(S) No. 3850 of 2002 for payment of salary. This writ petition was disposed of on 26 th November, 2002 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, Health, Family Welfare & Indigenous Medicine Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, who was directed to look into the matter and if there is any report against the petitioners, forward the ground to them and if not, then petitioners would be favoured with salary. Petitioners made representations before the Director, who forwarded the same to the Health Department vide letter dated 1 st February, 2003. In the meanwhile, petitioners were asked to submit their explanation in respect of the report of the Deputy Commissioner in his letter No. 1151 dated 14 th June, 2002. It is stated by the petitioners that they are not aware of any enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and were never asked any explanation. The report of the District Indigenous Officer, contained in his letter dated 13 th June, 2002 was the outcome of same enquiry, conducted behind their back without their association. In this report it was written that the relevant file is not in the office. The report of the District Indigenous Officer, contained in his letter dated 13 th June, 2002 was the outcome of same enquiry, conducted behind their back without their association. In this report it was written that the relevant file is not in the office. It is claimed by the petitioners that they submitted all the papers, relating to their appointment to the Deputy Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, on 10 th February, 2003. 6. Grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the facts on record, they have been terminated vide Memo No. 91(8) dated 14 th May, 2003. In this impugned order petitioners name figured at serial No. 7 and 8 respectively. 7. The State-respondent in its counter affidavit has stated that the petitioners have been terminated by respondent No. 2 after enquiring into the matter, wherein, it was found that essential procedure for recruitment rules was not followed at the time of appointment and the experience certificates of the petitioners were also doubtful. It is further stated that the roster clearance was not obtained from the competent authority. It is further stated that the relevant file is not available in the office of respondent No. 5. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, vide letter No. 696 (ii) dated 19 th September, 1999 wrote to the Divisional Commissioner that it has come to his knowledge that a large scale of illegal and forged appointments have been made in the Health Department at district level and they were directed to examine the matter and cancel illegal appointments. The Divisional Commissioner, South Santhal Parganas Division, vide his letter No. 237 dated 17 th July, 2001 asked the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to examine the illegality and report. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, in turn, vide his Memo No. 2725 dated 12 th October, 2001 directed respondent No. 5 to examine the appointments, made in the district of Dumka and subsequently, vide another letter dated 3 rd November, 2001 salary of the employees was withheld till completion of the enquiry. It is further mentioned that respondent No. 5 conducted enquiry and submitted report to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, on 13 th June, 2002 on the basis of documents, supplied to him by the concerned persons and said report was forwarded to respondent No. 2, who found various irregularities and passed the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is on the record that names were called from the Employment Exchange; petitioners names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange; they participated in the interview and appointment letters were issued for their appointment on 21 st June, 1986. They joined the posts on 30 th June, 1986 and 23 rd June, 1986 respectively and were transferred on 13 th January, 1987 and 6 th March, 1987. They were also granted time bound promotion on 27 th July, 1996. They were also given benefit of the 5 th Payment Commission in the year, 1999. One Mr. Dwivedi, the then Director, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 10 th May, 2003 and certified that the petitioners appointment was legal and valid. This report was based upon the documents examined by the Director and the enquiry was conducted pursuant to the direction of the High Court In W.P.(S) No. 5848 of 2001. The Director verified the validity of appointment of number of persons, including the petitioners, two persons with the same name of Md. Kalimuddin, Harish Kumar Thakur, Bhim Chandra De, Suresh Bhandari etc. Bhim Chandra De and Suresh Bhandari filed a separate writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3836 of 2003 whereas both Md. Kalimuddin along with two others filed W.P.(S) No. 687 of 2003. The writ petition filed by Md. Kalimuddin & ors. was allowed and termination order set aside. Similarly the writ petition filed by Bhim Chandra De and Suresh Chandra Bhandari was also allowed in view of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 687 of 2003. Petitioners case is also similar to Md. Kalimuddin and others, as their appointments were also held to be valid in the enquiry conducted by the Director. 9. The termination order passed by the Secretary is based upon another enquiry, which was admittedly held behind the back of the petitioners, as they were never provided any opportunity of explaining their position. It is also relevant to refer that the Secretary in his enquiry has referred to various documents to arrive at the conclusion that their appointment was illegal. He has also mentioned about the enquiry conducted by the Director to reject that enquiry only on the ground that Mr. Dwivedi was not holding the post of Director on substantive basis. 10. Mr. He has also mentioned about the enquiry conducted by the Director to reject that enquiry only on the ground that Mr. Dwivedi was not holding the post of Director on substantive basis. 10. Mr. Modi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) , Pankaj Gupta v. State of J. and K. , Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and State of U.P. v. Desh Raj , to urge that where appointment itself is illegal, termination order cannot be interfered with. 11. The proposition sought to be propounded cannot be disputed. However, in this case it has been established on record that initial appointment of the petitioners was by following due procedure of law. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment in Md. Kalimuddins case passed in W.P.(S) No. 867 of 2003, which has attained finality. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order No. 91(8) dated 14 th May, 2003 and consequential Memo No. 99 dated 25 th June, 2003 in both the writ petitions are hereby quashed with a further direction to the respondents to pay the withheld salary of the petitioners. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are also directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. They would be deemed to be in continued service and will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs.