Judgment D.K Sinha, J. -Both the appeals under Section 10 of the Letters Patent have arisen out of common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2850 of 2003, whereby and where-under, the writ petition of the petitioners/appellants (L.PA No. 96 of 2008) was disposed of with the direction to the respondents (appellants in L.P.A. No.124 of 2008) to consider the claims of the Writ petitioners for their regular appointment If any such vacancy existed at that time or towards future vacancy. 2. In W.P.(S) No. 2850 of 2003 the appellants of the L.P.A. No. 96 of 2008 were the petitioners whereas the appellants herein of L.P.A. NO.124 of 2008 were the respondents therein. 3. The case of the writ petitioners was that they were initially engaged in the Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad as daily rated employees on Class-IV posts. They continued to hold such engagement for a long time. It was stated inter alia that petitioner NO.1 was engaged on 18th July, 1989, petitioner NO.2 on 18th August, 1989 and petitioner no. 3 on 15th March, 1986. 4. The Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad by letter dated 11th March, 1998 had requested the Principal, PMCH, Dhanbad to send the names and particulars of daily rated employees of Grade IV for consideration of their regular appointment against sanctioned vacant posts and pursuant to that, the Principal, PMCH, Dhanbad sent the details of daily rated employees including the petitioners. By letter dated 30th April, 1998, the petitioners were called upon to appear with their original certificates for their interview on 12th May, 1998 before the Selection / Appointment Committee duly constituted on 3rd April, 1998 in this regard, consisting of 11 members, for selection of the candidates from the daily rated employees, against the sanctioned vacant posts. Petitioners appeared, got selected and were appointed at regular scale of pay of Rs. 775-12-955-14-1025/- against sanctioned vacant posts by office order dated 16th May, 1998 under the signature of the Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad. They joined their assigned post on 18th May, 1998 as Ward Boys. Though they were performing their duties regularly but they were not being paid their salary in spite of their representation. 775-12-955-14-1025/- against sanctioned vacant posts by office order dated 16th May, 1998 under the signature of the Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad. They joined their assigned post on 18th May, 1998 as Ward Boys. Though they were performing their duties regularly but they were not being paid their salary in spite of their representation. Pursuant to that, the Principal, PMCH, Dhanbad intimated the Secretary, Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare by his letter dated 2nd September, 1999 about the regularization of the appellants in view of their engagement since 1986 and by the said letter, it was requested for allocation of fund of Rs. 1,22,572/- for payment of their wages. But the petitioners were called upon to show-cause as to why their services be not terminated as their reappointment/regularization was subject to approval of the Health Commissioner and the Health Commissioner declined to approve their appointments and directed to terminate them. In their causes shown, they requested not to terminate them from service and allow them to continue on the same posts and to pay their salaries for the work performed by them. The writ petitioners stated that without consideration on the representation and causes shown by them, they were terminated by the impugned order dated 12th January, 2000. 5. Against the said order, petitioners preferred C.W.J.C. No. 754 of 2000 Which was finally heard and disposed of on 19th June, 2002 by directing the respondents to release the arrears of pay to the petitioners with interest @ 10% per annum and further direction to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners .for their reinstatement When such direction could not be complied, they preferred Contempt Case (C) No. 798 of 2002 and their arrears of salary were paid to them during pendency of the contempt petition. Yet, the respondents passed the final order upholding their termination and rejecting the representation of the writ petitioners by order dated 29th January, 2003. 6. Respondents case (appellants in L.P.A. No. 124 of 2008) was that only the petitioners were called for interview before the Committee constituted for reappointment, whereas the admitted vacancies were 63 and only the petitioners were appointed after interview. When such irregularity was brought to the notice of the higher authority, show-cause notices were served upon them but having been dissatisfied with their causes shown, the petitioners were terminated from their service. 7. When such irregularity was brought to the notice of the higher authority, show-cause notices were served upon them but having been dissatisfied with their causes shown, the petitioners were terminated from their service. 7. Respondents exhorted that the petitioners were appointed in PMCH, Dhanbad and were terminated from there, therefore, they could only be appointed in PMCH. Their claim for reappointment in alternative in Shree Shree Laxmi Narayan Trust Hospital, Dhanbad (in short SSLN Trust Hospital) in case of no vacancy in PMCH, Dhanbad cannot sustain. According to the counsel for" respondents/appellants the petitioners came under the category of Unskilled Grade IV and their cases could be considered only against the vacancies of that category. It was explained that as there was no vacancy in PMCH, Dhanbad in proper grade so the petitioners could not be appointed in PMCH but they cannot be appointed in SSLN Trust Hospital against the existing vacancy as they were not terminated from SSLN Trust Hospital, Dhanbad. 8. Learned Single Judge after consideration of the materials on the record and controversies, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner, "In view of the said disputed position of vacancy and in the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioners claim for appointment, if any such vacancy exists at present. If no such vacancy exists at present, their claim shall be considered as and when such vacancy arises in future. Henceforth no further appointment shall be made against Class IV Post. In PMCH, Dhanbad without considering the petitioners' claim on preference, as was assured by the respondents. The petitioners are at liberty to point out the clear vacancy, if it is available at present or if arises in future. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners as well as the respondents, both preferred two separate Letters Patent Appeals as stated hereinabove. 10. The petitioners are at liberty to point out the clear vacancy, if it is available at present or if arises in future. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners as well as the respondents, both preferred two separate Letters Patent Appeals as stated hereinabove. 10. Petitioners-appellants (in L.P.A. No. 96 of 2008) assailed the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that even accepting the appointment of the petitioners after due selection process, by the Selection Committee, in accordance with law, their termination order was not set aside and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that they were terminated only because their appointments were not approved by the Health Commissioner though they had rendered long services for about 11-14 years and consequently, they were regularized through due selection procedure but they were removed illegally. 11. It was further pointed out that there was no consistency between the reasons mentioned in the rejection order on the representation of the petitioners for reconsideration and with the reasons mentioned in their termination order. Their termination order therefore, was liable to be set aside being illegal, brought about in utter violation of natural justice. 12. Mrs. Pal further submitted that in spite of the direction and observation made by the learned Single Judge on 26.9.2007 six candidates were appointed against Group-D posts by order dated 2.1.2008 but the claim of the petitioners was not considered. She reiterated that in view of the observation/direction made by the learned Single Judge the case of the petitioners/appellants was of reinstatement and not of reappointment and there was no bar in shifting the petitioners-appellants to SSLN Trust Hospital, Dhanbad after rein- stating them to their original post of Ward Boy in PMCH, Dhanbad. 13. Respondents-appellants preferred the appeal (L.P.A. No. 124 of 2008) assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that by the said order they have been restrained from making any appointment in future on Class-IV post in PMCH, Dhanbad. The learned counsel stressed that since their reappointment/regularization on the post of Ward Boys was initially illegal, the writ petitioners/respondents (L.P.A. NO.124 of 2008) were terminated from their service with effect from 17.5.1998. The learned counsel stressed that since their reappointment/regularization on the post of Ward Boys was initially illegal, the writ petitioners/respondents (L.P.A. NO.124 of 2008) were terminated from their service with effect from 17.5.1998. The fact could not be considered and appreciated that the writ petitioners failed to bring the facts on record that they had appeared for regularization against advertised post and were selected by duly constituted Selection/Appointment Committee. The constitution of the said Committee was simple an eye-wash which never held any meeting or took any interview of the daily wages workers of PMCH, Dhanbad. On the other hand, only the three writ petitioners were called for interview and appointed by ignoring all norms and the provisions of appointment Rules and no formality whatsoever was observed before reappointment regularization of the services of the petitioners/respondents hence, they were illegally appointed by the Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad. Yet, terminated w.e.f. 17.5.1998. 14. It was clarified that though they were reappointed /regularized vide memo No. 720 dated 16.5.1998 issued by the Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad but their services were terminated w.e.f. 17.5.1998 a date after their alleged reappointment / regularization. By challenging the authority, the learned counsel stressed that the Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad was neither competent to make appointment of the writ petitioners nor was competent to regularize/reappoint them and in that minner, he acted beyond his jurisdiction and as an interested person. The termination orders were served upon the petitioners/ respondents after observing the principles of natural justice as they were called upon to show-cause by explaining the illegality in their appointment/regularization as to why not they be terminated from their service. Their causes shown were not found satisfactory and therefore, their appointments were held illegal accordingly were terminated. 15. The learned counsel attracted our attention by submitting that the entire exercise was done for their regularization/ reappointment in total violation of appointment Rules and the petitioners/respondents procured their reappointments through illegal means by a person neither competent in authority nor authorized to issue such appointment letters. In view of such illegality caused in their appointment which could not be cured, their services were rightly terminated. 16. In view of such illegality caused in their appointment which could not be cured, their services were rightly terminated. 16. The learned Single Judge restrained the respondents/ appellants from making any future appointment on Class IV posts in PMCH, Dhanbad, ignoring the fact that the process of fresh appointment had been initiated, inviting applications from willing candidates but the petitioners/respondents neither did submit their applications nor did they put forward any claim by filing representation in pursuance to such advertisement. For their such negligence they did not deserve any leniency and in such situation the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed direction by putting such restrain upon the respondents/appellants from making any future appointment on Ciass-IV posts in PMCH, Dhanbad. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are conscious of the grievances raised on behalf of the parties in both the appeals which have been heard together. We find from the recital of the termination order dated 12th January, 2000 that their appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and the causes shown by them as to why they be not terminated was not found satisfactory. However, by the said office order, which was issued under the signature of the Superintendent, PMCH, Dhanbad it was assured that in case of any future vacancy in PMCH, Dhanbad their cases shall be considered on priority (Annexure-9). In view of such assurance the petitioners had legitimate expectation of their being appointed in PMCH, Dhanbad but the respondents failed to comply their promise by reappointing them. 18. The reply of the respondents that the petitioners had not applied against the existing vacancy when it was advertised and their cases could not be considered do not appear having force in it therefore, not tenable. Admittedly the petitioners had served in the PMCH, Dhanbad for about 11-14 years on daily wages and in spite of their regularization /reappointment as Ward Boys they were terminated on the expressed ground that the norms of appointment were not followed. In our view it were the respondents who had to follow the norms and rules of appointment. 19. It is settled law that illegal appointment cannot be cured but irregular appointment can be. In our view it were the respondents who had to follow the norms and rules of appointment. 19. It is settled law that illegal appointment cannot be cured but irregular appointment can be. We find that the reappointment/regularization of the petitioners after rendering 11-14 years of services in Grade IV on daily wages in PMCH, Dhanbad by the Appointment/Selection Committee cannot be said as illegal appointment in any manner as it was not a case of fresh appointment on the existing vacancy. The appointment letter (Annexure5) issued to the writ petitioners dated 16.5.1998 clearly indicated that they were appointed only against three posts of Ward Boys in grade IV pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee, subject to the approval of the Health Commissioner, in PMCH, Dhanbad and SSLN Trust Hospital, Dhanbad against total 63 clear vacancies pursuant to the direction made by the Directorate of Health Services, Bihar, Patna by letter No. 286/ Health Department dated 25.11.1982, letter No. 283 (22) dated 30.4.1986 and the memo of Health Commissioner 128(5)/ Health dated 11.2.1993. 20. The contents of the appointment letter (Annexure-5) strengthen the case of the writ petitioners /appellants that their reappointment/absorption on the three posts of Grade IV was not illegal though their such absorption could not be approved by the Health Commissioner. We are conscious of the fact that the vacancies have been fulfilled without consideration of the claim of the writ petitioners/ appellants though they had legitimate expectation as per the assurance made by the authority that their cases shall be considered towards the future vacancies. We have already observed that the ground taken by the respondents/appellants that since the petitioners/ appellants did not apply towards the future vacancy advertised, and therefore, their cases could not be considered, does not appear to be reasonable ground to refrain the petitioners from their legitimate expectation. In such situation, we expect that on the representation of the petitioners within six weeks of the order before the competent authority for consideration in relation to their absorption on the suitable post in Grade IV either in PMCH, Dhanbad or SSLN Trust Hospital, Dhanbad towards regular vacancy, in any of the above institution, their claim shall be considered sympathetically. 21. With these observations, both the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of. M. Y. Eqbal, J.- I agree.