JUDGMENT : S. L. Kochar, J. Since all the aforesaid 13 Writ Appeals arise out of one common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos. 559, 565, 566, 567, 572, 573, 589, 590, 591, 592, 706, 1009 and 1523 all of the year 2007 (S), therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7-7-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 559/07(S), whereby allowing the writ petitions, directed reinstatement of the petitioners, respondents herein, in service to the posts on which they were working at the time of the impugned order but without any financial benefit and backwages, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Writ Appeals under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 3. Short resume of the facts as taken from W. P. No. 559/07(S) are as follows : - 4. The appellants herein got published an advertisement in daily news papers inviting applications for recruitment of class IV employees belonging to SC/ST category under the Special Recruitment Drive (Vishesh Bharti Abhiyan) undertaken in pursuance of communication dated 19-1-1996 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare and another Communication dated May 18, 1996, issued by the Director of Health Services. The respondent Rajesh Ahirwar applied and on recommendations of the District Selection Committee, he was appointed on the post of Dresser on 2-8-1996 in Polaykala District Shajapur by the Chief Medical and Health Officer (for short CM and HO) Shajapur in the regular pay scale of 825-1220. This appointment letter is filed as Annexure P/3 to the petition. But, he along with other appointees were directed to join the duty in public interest and official exigency as well as because of shortage of staff, at District Hospital, Shajapur until further orders. This order dated 6-8-1999 was filed as Annexure P/4 to the petition. 5. The respondent after joining the post continued to work and submitted that he worked efficiently and sincerely without any complaint whatsoever. On 18-2-2000, the respondent was posted in the same capacity at Primary Health Centre, Polayakala by order annexure P/5 and relieved on the same day from District Hospital, Shajapur. The respondent was given regular pay scale of Rs. 825-1220 as revised from time to time as per appointment order. On 18-2-2000, the respondent was posted in the same capacity at Primary Health Centre, Polayakala by order annexure P/5 and relieved on the same day from District Hospital, Shajapur. The respondent was given regular pay scale of Rs. 825-1220 as revised from time to time as per appointment order. He was also given Dearness Allowance as admissible to a regular State Government Employee. His General Provident Fund Account was opened as per Rules. He contributed to Group Insurance Scheme, House Rent Allowance was also given to him and after some time Government accommodation was made available to him. Respondent Rajesh Ahirwar, in order to substantiate these facts filed relevant documents along with the petition. 6. It was pleaded by the respondent that from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1996 till 2005, there was no complaint whatsoever against him by the Department. However, all of a sudden he was served with a show cause notice dated 22-8-2005 Annexure P/11 issued by the CM and HO Shajapur (appellant No. 3) herein, to show cause as to why his services should not be termination on the ground that all the appointments made by the then CM and HO, Shajapur Dr. R. S. Johari in the year 1996 suffered from administrative irregularities, non-observation of Roster and Rules made for reservation, because of which the same were found irregular and illegal. 7. The respondent submitted his reply Annexure P/12 dated 1-9-2000 contending that he had submitted application along with the required documents enclosed therewith for the post of a Dresser for appointment under the Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST category. He also submitted that he was appointed keeping in view his merit position and in pursuance of the recommendations of District Selection Committee constituted for that purpose. After receiving the reply, the CM and HO respondent No. 3 issued order Annexure P/1 terminating the services of the respondent with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of his initial appointment. It is mentioned in this order Annexure P/1 that the aforesaid action was taken in view of some interim order passed by the High Court on 30-11-2006 in W. P. No. 4708/05 (It appears that because of typing mistake in the order Annexure P/1 year of the petition is typed as 2006 whereas it is 2005 as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. Photostat copy whereof [interim order of the High Court is filed during the course of argument] and on the ground that the reply filed by the respondent to show cause notice was not found satisfactory. 8. It appears that the appellant No. 3 herein had issued another order dated 20-2-2007 whereby the termination order was amended and stipulations in the said order to the effect that the said order was issued in pursuance of the order of High Court, Indore Bench dated 30-11-2006 has been deleted. The aforesaid corrigendum has been appended as Annexure R/1 to the reply of the respondents. 9. It is also mentioned in the petition by the respondent that he was not apprised specifically as to what irregularity or illegality was committed in his appointment and he was also not heard in any inquiry in this regard and if any inquiry had taken place, the same was behind his back. The respondent also averred that his services were made permanent and the same were continued for such a long period and there was no illegality or irregularity in his appointment. 10. All the respondents have approached the High Court almost all with the same grievance against their identical termination orders and it is not a matter of any dispute that all the petitioners in this bunch of petitions were appointed to various class IV posts of paramedical staff, such as Dresser, Ward boy, Dai and Compounder etc. in the year 1996 through independent and separate appointment orders. 11. According to the respondents, after their initial appointment and posting/transfer orders issued from time to time, they continued on their duty with full sincerity and efficiency on their respective posts. 12. The appellants herein opposed the case of respondents before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appointment orders were issued to respondents without following proper selection process, therefore, the same were illegal and irregular. According to the appellants, the respondents could not be permitted to take benefit of their long stay in service in the Department and that termination orders were passed by the Departmental Authority after serving show cause notice upon them and after considering their replies in the matter. It has also been submitted that the impugned action was taken by the department after conducting fact finding inquiry and after realizing that no proper and required procedure was followed. It has also been submitted that the impugned action was taken by the department after conducting fact finding inquiry and after realizing that no proper and required procedure was followed. The appellants have nowhere stated that the respondents were not initially eligible for being appointed to the respective posts. It is also an admitted position that all the respondents belong to SC/ST category and appointed under the scheme of Special Recruitment Drive (Vishesh Bharti Abhiyan). 13. Learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties' at length and considering their rival contentions and the Supreme Court judgments passed in the cases of Ramswaroop vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1536 , Buddhinath Chaudhary vs. Abahi Kumar, 2001 SCW 105 and Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC Page 1, as well as two circulars dated 16-5-2007 and 8-2-2008 issued by the General Administration Department (for short: G.A.D. of the State Government), has held that all the respondents were duly eligible and having requisite qualifications. They also belong to SC/ST category. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid pronouncements and the circulars issued by the GAD, merely on account of some irregularities in the selection process, after spending at least a decade in service on their respective posts after treating them as 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 and allowed the petitions quashing the termination orders of the respondents with a direction that all the respondents would be entitled to their continuity in their service but would not be entitled to any financial benefits on that basis including payment of any backwages. The respondents had also given up their right to claim backwages as is clear from the impugned order. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record carefully. 15. The respondents had also given up their right to claim backwages as is clear from the impugned order. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record carefully. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta and others vs. Ram Ashray Mohato and others, JT 2005(11) SC 56 and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Gauhar and others vs. State of M. P. and others dated 14-8-2006 in W. P. No. 2195/2003 wherein it is held that "Without adequate notice, no fair opportunity was given to others who might have applied". Apart from this, it does not appear from the record that there was any selection procedure followed at all. There is no explanation why the Selection Committee had been bye-passed nor any acceptable reason why the persons who had applied, as far back as in 1986 were ignored. This singular lack of transparency supports the finding of the High Court that the appointments were not made "bona fide." 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and also submitted that they all belonged to SC/ST community and applied for being appointed as Class IV employees on the basis of the advertisement published in daily news papers and pleaded the same specifically in petition para 5.1. It is also submitted that along with show cause notice, inquiry report was not given to them and at the time of fact finding inquiry they were not noticed and the same was conducted behind their back. In the show-cause notice Ex.P/1, what kind of irregularity and illegality committed and which rules were applicable for appointment of the respondents, were not mentioned. It is stated in the show-cause notice that the rules of Roster and Reservation were not followed, which is not correct. All the posts were for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category and all the respondents belonged to that category, therefore, there was no breach of rule of Roster and Reservation. It is stated in the show-cause notice that the rules of Roster and Reservation were not followed, which is not correct. All the posts were for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category and all the respondents belonged to that category, therefore, there was no breach of rule of Roster and Reservation. Learned counsel for the respondents have also urged that all the respondents were eligible and academically qualified for appointment to the posts in question and under Special Recruitment Drive, the respondents were selected by the Selection Committee, thereafter, given posting as regular appointee. Their General Provident Fund Accounts were opened and respondents were contributing as per law. Some of the respondents were also allotted Government accommodations and all were appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts as regular employees. According to the respondents, it would be a case of great hardship to them, if their services are terminated after more than ten years. 17. In our considered view the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in case of Vinod Kumar Gupta (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta (ibid) there was specific rules framed for appointment of Class III and IV employees called as "Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1992" and in utter disregard of these rules, at every step of appointment, the appointments were made. It was admitted position that no advertisements were published in any newspaper at all and no reason was assigned as to why the persons who had applied as far back as in 1986 were ignored. In the instant case, no such breach has been pointed out by the appellants. We have perused the reply filed by the appellants wherein in para 3(5) of special pleadings, it is mentioned that the services of the employees are governed by Madhya Pradesh Lok Swasthya Evam Pariwar Kalyan Vibhag (Alipikiya Swasthya Sewaon Ke Sambandhi Sewa Bharti Niyam) 1959. But these rules are not applicable for Class IV employees and meant only for the employment of Class III employees. Learned counsel for the appellant has also admitted this factual position. 18. But these rules are not applicable for Class IV employees and meant only for the employment of Class III employees. Learned counsel for the appellant has also admitted this factual position. 18. The High Court and the Supreme Court have given specific finding in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta (supra) that the appointments were not made bona fide whereas in the case on hand, learned Single Judge, after examining all factual and legal position, has held in internal pages 17 and 18 of the impugned order, as under: - "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 vs. 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 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 said 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. " 19. We have also given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and legal position and are in full agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that mere irregularity in the recruitment of the respondents, would not be sufficient to terminate their services, especially when they applied on the basis of advertisement in the news paper, belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community having requisite eligibility and rendered services for more than ten years with full sincerity and efficiency without any complaint whatsoever and appointed as per Special Recruitment Drive. 20. 20. It is also worth noting that the notices issued to the respondents were vague in which nowhere it is mentioned that without any advertisement or calling the names from Employment Exchange recruitments were done and the contents of notice that rules of roster and reservation were not followed, are incorrect, because all the posts were for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and appointments were made under Special Recruitment Drive. 21. In the case of Brajesh Gauhar (supra), the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, the facts are that the petitioners' services were governed by Madhya Pradesh Labour (Judiciary) Class III Non-Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 and under Rule 6, procedure for recruitment has been prescribed for any post, but without following the mandatory procedure. Acting Chairman had filled up the posts wherein relatives of the member of Industrial Tribunal as well as two sons of Acting Chairman were recruited without publishing any advertisement in the newspapers and calling the names from Employment Exchange. Learned Single Judge has given specific finding that the appointments were per se illegal and were made with a mala fide intention to favour of relatives of the appointing authority. Such is not the case here. There is nothing on record to establish any malice on the part of the then members of the Selection Committee out of whom the then Chief Medical and Health Officer Dr. Johari is now no more in this world. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these Writ Appeals, therefore, they are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, we maintain the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 23. Original judgment be retained in the record of Writ Appeal No. 23/2010 and a copy each be placed in the records of the remaining Writ Appeals. Appeals dismissed.