Judgment 1. The petitioners have challenged ihe order contained in Memo No. 1095 dated 6.12.1995 by which the salary of the petitioners has been stopped by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 2. The petitioners were appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi (East) on 22.5.1990 and 28 8.1990 after facing an interview by a duly constituted Committee. Their pay for the post of Choukidars has been withheld since 6.12.1995 except in the case of the petitioner no. 7 whose pay has been withheld since March, 1992. 3. The alleged reasons for witholding of pay is that the State Government laid down certain criteria for the appointment of Village Choukidar and Dafadars which were not fulfilled while appointing the petitioners. Section 34 also provides that the District Magistrate may delegate the power of appointment to the Deputy Manager (sic Deputy Magistrate ?) Incharge of the Department in the Sadar Sub Division and to the Sub Divisional Officer within their respective jurisdiction 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Magistrate had delegated the power of appointment to the Sub Divisional Officer by Memo No. 99 dated 29.4.1976. It has also been stated that after the petitioners were appointed, their appointments were approved by the District Magistrate sometime in January 1991. It has been asserted and stated on behalf of the petitioners that they are performing their duties regularly till 1999, and as such, they are entitled to receive the arrears of salary. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed and the facts have not been controverted except to say that the Sub Divisional Officer ought to have obtained a letter of formal approval of appointment from the District Magistrate before issuing the letter of appointment to the petitioners. 6. In my opinion the Sub Divisional Officer ought to have taken the approval of the District Magistrate before issuing the letter of appointment but if the procedure for appointment was otherwise in accordance with law, the District Magistrate could have issued a posf facto approval and the petitioners ought not to have been terminated on this ground alone. 7. In the facts aforesaid, I direct that the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, should verify whether the power of delegation for appointment was issued by the then District Magistrate and whether the petitioners were regularly working as Choukidars in the Village where they have been posted till the letter of termination. 7. In the facts aforesaid, I direct that the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, should verify whether the power of delegation for appointment was issued by the then District Magistrate and whether the petitioners were regularly working as Choukidars in the Village where they have been posted till the letter of termination. The entire verification should be concluded within a period of three months. If the petitioners are found duly appointed as Choukidars, they may be paid their arrears of salary within a period of six months if it is due to them. 8. I may clarify that in case the Collector of the District on enquiry finds that the appointments were regularly made, then the petitioners may join the posts provided there are vacancies on the said post of Chowkidars. 9. In the result, this writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.