ORDER (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of writ petitions being Writ Petition No.559/2007(S), Writ Petition No.565/2007(S), Writ Petition No.566/2007(S), Writ Petition No.567/2007(S), Writ Petition No.572/ 2007(S), Writ Petition No.589/2007(S), Writ Petition No.590/2007(S), Writ Petition No.59112007(S), Writ Petition No.592/2007(S), Writ Petition No.706/2007(S), Writ Petition No.1009/2007(S) and Writ Petition No. 1523/2007(S), as identical controversy is involved in all these cases. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from Writ Petition No.559/2007(S). 2. In pursuance to a Special Recruitment Drive (Vishesh Bharti Abhiyan) undertaken on behalf of the State Government, on the recommendations of the District Selection Committee, the petitioner Rajesh Ahirwar was appointed on August 2, 1996, as a dresser, by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur, in the regular pay-scales of Rs.825-1,220/-. The aforesaid appointment letter has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. 3. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the copy of the aforesaid appointment order was duly endorsed by the appointing authority i.e. Chief Medical and Health Officer, to Principal Secretary, Health Department and also the Director Health Services. The Special Recruitment Drive was undertaken in pursuance to a communication dated January 19, 1996, issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Madhya Pradesh, and another communication dated May 18, 1996 issued by the Director of Health Services. 4. It may be noticed that the petitioner, concededly, belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. After his appointment and joining the pos~, the petitioner continued to work on the appointed post. He claims that he worked efficiently and diligently, without any complaint whatsoever. On August 6, 1999, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred and posted in the same capacity in Primary Health Centre, Polyakalan, district Shajapur, by the Chief Medical and Health Officer. As per the appointment order, the petitioner was placed in the regular pay-scales of Rs.825-1,220/-, as revised from time to time. He was also given dearness allowance, as admissible to a regular State Government employee; his General Provident Fund Account was opened, as per law; he contributed to Group Insurance Scheme; house rent allowance was also made available to him; Later he was also made available a Government accommodation. 5. He was also given dearness allowance, as admissible to a regular State Government employee; his General Provident Fund Account was opened, as per law; he contributed to Group Insurance Scheme; house rent allowance was also made available to him; Later he was also made available a Government accommodation. 5. It appears that from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1996, till the year 2005, there was no interruption in the service career of the petitioner, nor any complaint had been received against his working. However, on August 22, 2005, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur respondent No.3, requiring him to show cause as to why his services be not terminated on the ground that all the appointments made by the then Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur, Dr. R.S. Johar, in the year 1996 were tainted with administrative irregularities, non-observation of roster and rules for reservation. A copy of the aforesaid show cause notice has been appended as Annexure P-11 with the petition. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on September 1,2005, by maintaining that he had submitted his application in the year 1996, for appointment, under the Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST categories, for the post of a dresser. He also maintained that he had been appointed keeping in view his merit position, and in pursuance to the recommendation of the District Selection Committee, meant for that purpose. He appears to have appended the requisite documents in this regard. However, an order dated January 4, 2007 has been passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur respondent No.3, whereby the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of his initial appointment. The aforesaid order recites that the aforesaid action had been taken, in view of some interim order passed by the High Court on November 30,2006 in Writ Petition No.4708/2006, and also on the ground that the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not found to be satisfactory. The termination order has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. 6. The termination order has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. 6. It appears that later on, through another order dated February 20, 2007, the termination order was amended and the stipulation in the said order to the effect that the said order has been passed in pursuance to the order of the High Court, Indore Bench dated November 30, 2006 has been deleted. The aforesaid corrigendum issued on February 22, 2007 has been appended as Annexure R-1 with the reply of the respondents. It is with the aforesaid grievance to the identical termination orders, that all the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petitions. 7. It is not a matter of any dispute that all the petitioners, in this bunch of cases, were appointed to various Class IV posts of para medical staff, such as, ward boy, Dai and Compounder etc. in the year 1996, through independent and separate appointment orders. The petitioners, after their appointments, joined on their respective posts. They were assigned posting places. It has been maintained by them that as a matter of fact, all of them were duly eligible and academically qualified, for appointment to the posts in question, and the said recruitment process had been undertaken by the authorities, under Vishesh Bharti Abhiyan. According to the petitioners, after their initial appointment, they were issued posting orders/transfer orders, from time to time, and as per the said orders, the petitioners continued to work diligently on their respective posts. It appears that the petitioners continued to work uninterruptedly for a period of more than ten years. It has also been specifically pleaded by the petitioners that during the aforesaid period of their employment, their GPF accounts were also opened, and were duly maintained by the authorities. The petitioners were also contributing to the said funds, as per law. According to the petitioners, they were also getting the due increments, from time to time, as per their entitlement. The petitioners have also pleaded that during the course of their employment, treating them to be regular Government employees, they were also allotted Government accommodation or were granted house rent allowance. 8. According to the petitioners, they were also getting the due increments, from time to time, as per their entitlement. The petitioners have also pleaded that during the course of their employment, treating them to be regular Government employees, they were also allotted Government accommodation or were granted house rent allowance. 8. A common stand has been taken by all the petitioners that they had been appointed on a regular basis in a valid selection process, undertaken in the year 1996, and had worked in the department at various posting places, for a period of more than ten years, and therefore, when all through the petitioners have been treated as regular employees of the department, and even all the requisite benefits of regular employees had been extended to them, including the opening of the GPF accounts; allotment of Government accommodation; extension of due increments to them; and such other benefits, etc., it was not appropriate for the State Government to have suddenly termed their appointments as illegal and being contrary to the rules, and thereby order their termination. 9. The claim made by the petitioners has been contested by the respondents. Separate and independent replies have been filed by them in each of the writ petitions. An identical stand has been taken. It has been maintained that the appointments of the petitioners were illegal and had been made without following any due procedure. 10. According to the respondents, the appointment orders had been issued to the petitioners, without undertaking any proper selection process and therefore, since the appointments of the petitioners, were itself illegal and irregular, therefore, the petitioners could not be permitted to take any benefit of their long stay in the department. It has also been maintained that merely because the petitioners have worked for a period of more than ten years, would be no ground to permit them to continue on the basis of their irregular and illegal appointments. It has also been maintained by the respondents that the impugned termination orders have been passed by the Department authority, after serving a show cause notice upon the petitioners, and after considering their replies in the matter. It has also been maintained that the impugned action has been taken by the department after conducting a fact finding enquiry into the matter, and after realizing that no proper procedure had been followed. It has also been maintained that the impugned action has been taken by the department after conducting a fact finding enquiry into the matter, and after realizing that no proper procedure had been followed. However, the respondents are silent with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioners were initially eligible for appointment to the posts or not. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 12. It has been claimed by the petitioners that with regard to Class IV services to the post to which the petitioners were appointed, no recruitment service rules had ever been framed nor were operative on the day on which the petitioners were so appointed. However, in the reply filed by the respondents, although, the said fact has been disputed and it has been maintained that service rules known as M.P. Lok Swastha Evam Parivar Kalyan Vibhag Aalipikiya Swastha Sewaon Ke Sambandhit Sewa Bharti Niyam, 1989, were applicable to the recruitment of Class IV employees, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have produced before the Court a copy of the aforesaid Rules, and maintained that as a matter of fact, the said Rules pertain to Class III service recruitments and not to Class IV services. As a matter of fact, a copy of the aforesaid Rules has been appended as Annexure P-6 in Writ Petition No.1009/2007(S), which is also being disposed of in the present bunch of writ petitions. 13. However, learned Deputy Government counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the said fact, but places strong reliance upon the plea raised in this regard in the pleadings. Be that as it may, the specific plea raised by the petitioner is that at the time when they had been appointed, a regular selection process had been resorted to and on the recommendations made by the District Selection Committee, they were selected and so appointed. 14. The facts, as noticed above, are not a matter of any dispute. It is not contested by the respondents that the petitioners had been appointed to the various posts of para medical staff (Class IV employees) in the year 1996, through separate and independent appointment orders. They joined the aforesaid respective posts in the year 1996 itself. 14. The facts, as noticed above, are not a matter of any dispute. It is not contested by the respondents that the petitioners had been appointed to the various posts of para medical staff (Class IV employees) in the year 1996, through separate and independent appointment orders. They joined the aforesaid respective posts in the year 1996 itself. From the aforesaid time of their joining, through various posting/transfer orders, they had been posted to various places. The fact that the petitioners were treated as regular employees of the department is clear from the fact that their GPF accounts were opened by the department; petitioners were required to contribute to the aforesaid accounts as per law; in some cases they were allotted Government accommodations as per their entitlement; they also received the due increments, as per their entitlement; and were also granted all other service benefits, which were admissible to a regular Government employee. It was only for the first time in the year 2005-2006, that the State Government held some fact finding enquiry and carne to a conclusion that the selection process, in which the petitioners had been recruited/appointed was not an appropriate selection process, and had not strictly adhered to the various guidelines issued by the State Government. 15. In these circumstances, even if it be taken that there was some irregularity in the selection process, in which the petitioners were so recruited, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners had in fact worked for a period of more than ten years on the day, when their services were ordered to be terminated. It is not even the case of the respondents, as has been noticed earlier also, that the petitioners were, in any manner, not ineligible for the posts, to which they had been appointed, having the requisite academic qualifications. If the petitioners were eligible for the posts in question, and they had worked for a period of more than ten years, then the experience gained by them, and the money spent upon them by the State Government, cannot be allowed to go waste, merely because some defect in the recruitment process had been detected by the State Government, after more than a decade. 16. It would be needless to stress that a fair play and a transparent selection process, in the matter of public appointment, is the basic requirement in a democracy. 16. It would be needless to stress that a fair play and a transparent selection process, in the matter of public appointment, is the basic requirement in a democracy. The aforesaid procedure is required to be followed at the time, when a recruitment process is undertaken. However, in the present case, since all the petitioners are Class IV employees, therefore, at this stage, it would be a hardship not only to the petitioners, but to their families as well, if the termination of their services were to be maintained by this Court. 17. It would be relevant to extract certain observations made by the apex Court in some of the judgments: In the case of Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1978 SC 1536 ], the apex Court has observed as follows : "2. The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach of Cl.(1) of RA of the Rules. Did it have the effect of rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired the necessary qualifications to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years' experience of the working of labour laws in anyone of the three capacities mentioned in Cl.(1) of R.4 or in any higher capacity, his appointment must be regarded as having been regularized." In the case of H. C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court [ AIR 1991 SC 295 ], it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: "13. There is goodsense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post-graduates as against the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. required for second division clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post-graduates as against the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. required for second division clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now over-aged for entry into any other service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the mid-stream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection." Again in the case of Bhuddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar [2001 AIR SCW 1025], the apex Court has observed as follows: "6. The selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade. Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous results. Since we are disposing of these matters on equitable consideration, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that their cases for appointment should also be considered. It is not clear whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. If that is so, unless anyone or more of the selected candidates are displaced, the cases of the contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed. Such a view can be derived from several decisions of this Court including the decisions in Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana [ (1979)1 SCC 168 = AIR 1978 SC 1536 =1978 Lab. IC 1535], District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [ (1990)3 SCC 655 ] and H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore [1991 Supp.(2) SCC 421= AIR 1991 SC 295 =1991 Lab. IC 235]. Therefore, we must let the matters lie where they are." 18. It is apparent that when the petitioners in the present writ petitions have spent at least a decade, having been selected and appointed in the year 1996 till their services have been ordered to be terminated in the year 2007 through the impugned orders, more so, when all through their services have been treated as of regular employees by the State Government, it would be a case of extreme hardship for the petitioners and their families, if at this stage, the termination orders qua them were to be upheld. Even as per the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioners have not been treated as ineligible for the appointment to the posts, to which they were so appointed, but it has been maintained that the impugned action has been taken against them merely on account of some irregularities in the selection process, and on account of the fact that names from employment exchange had not been sought. In these circumstances, it has to be taken that, at the most, the appointments of the petitions were to be treated as irregular and not illegal. 19. In these circumstances, it has to be taken that, at the most, the appointments of the petitions were to be treated as irregular and not illegal. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon two circulars dated May 16, 2007 and February 8, 2008, issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government, whereby in compliance of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006)4 SCC 1 ], a distinction has been drawn between the irregular appointments and illegal appointments, and a clarification has been issued that appointments made without advertisement and inviting names from employment exchange would be treated as irregular appointments, and therefore, as one time measure, would be treated as irregular appointments, and therefore, as one time measure, would be entitled to be regularized, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, whereas the illegal appointments could not be rectified. In these circumstances, as per the latest policy decision taken by the State Government, inferable from the ~aid circulars, it is clear that even if the appointments of the petitioners were to be treated as irregular, even then, at this stage, the same were liable to be regularized, as one time measure. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the respondents maintains that the petitioners belong to reserved categories, and while making their appointments, the roster position had also been ignored. 20. However, the fact that the petitioners belong to reserved categories (SC/ST), is a factor in their favour, rather than against them. Since, the petitioners not only had been appointed to Class IV categories, but also belong to SC/ST categories, is still another factor which would go in their favour. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioners could not be disturbed at this stage. It would also be pertinent to notice that initially when the termination orders had been passed then it was recited therein that the said orders had been passed as per some interim orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.4708 of 2006. However, when the petitioners filed these petitions and raised a challenge that the said interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.4708 of 2006 was not relevant, then a subsequent corrigendum dated February 20, 2007, was issued deleting the said stipulation. However, when the petitioners filed these petitions and raised a challenge that the said interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.4708 of 2006 was not relevant, then a subsequent corrigendum dated February 20, 2007, was issued deleting the said stipulation. Therefore, it appears that the termination orders had been issued by the respondents, almost mechanically and later, even though the mistake had been realized by the Department, still the said orders being defended. 21. Before parting with this order, it may be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioners have specifically undertaken that in case the termination orders qua the petitioners are set aside, and the petitioners are permitted to be continued in service, then all the petitioners are ready to give up their right to claim their back wages. 22. In view of the aforesaid fact, the present petitions are allowed. The orders terminating the services of the petitioners are hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioners would be reinstated in service, to the posts on which they were working at the time of passing of impugned orders. All the petitioners would be entitled to continuity in their services, but would not be entitled to any financial benefits on that basis, including the payment of any back wages. The requisite process would be completed by the respondents in implementing the orders passed by this Court, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.