JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the writ petitions involving more or less the same set of facts, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2011 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by which their services as Subject Teacher of Zoology have been cancelled/terminated with immediate effect. Such a course of action is said to be in compliance with the judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 passed in PIL No. 14/2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3178/2008, Smt. Julekha Wahida Ahmed v. State of Assam and Ors. Prior to issuance of the impugned orders dated 07.06.2011 which is identically worded and in fact can be said to be cyclostyled one, were preceded by show cause notices dated 10.05.2011 which are also identically worded. For a ready reference one of the show cause notices dated 10.05.2011 is reproduced below : GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI No. GB-EST/DSE/CC/125/2008/PL/171 Dated Kahilipara, the 10th May, 2011 From Shri B.N. Talukdar, Director of Secondary Education, Assam Kahilipara, Ghy-19 To, Shri Ajit Kr. Goswami, Subject Teacher in Zoology Bongaon H.S. School, P.O. Bongaon, Dist Barpeta Sub : Show cause notice Ref : (1) Govt. letter No. ELC/WP (C) 3178/2008/429/563 dated 03.05.2011 (2) Hon'ble High Court's order dated 06.08.2010 passed in PIL No. 14/2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3178/2008 filed by Zulekha Wahida Ahmed Sir, It is seen from the records/papers that you have received offer of appointment as Subject Teacher in Zoology on Ad- hoc basis which is quite contrary to the rules/procedures in force at that point of time. Further an advertisement was made on June/1992 for filling up of 20 posts of Subject Teacher in Zoology and accordingly the selection was made in October/1995 by the State Selection Board, Assam wherein your name appeared at Sl. X which is beyond the zone of 20 posts of Subject Teacher in Zoology advertised in June/1992. Hence your appointment is undeserved and subsequent regularisation as Subject Teacher in Zoology is found to be not proper and hence treated as illegal and as such as instructed by the Government vide letter No. ELC/WP (C) 317/2008/429/563, dated 03.05.2011, you are hereby required to show cause as to why your service will not be terminated/discontinued. Hence your appointment is undeserved and subsequent regularisation as Subject Teacher in Zoology is found to be not proper and hence treated as illegal and as such as instructed by the Government vide letter No. ELC/WP (C) 317/2008/429/563, dated 03.05.2011, you are hereby required to show cause as to why your service will not be terminated/discontinued. Accordingly show cause notice is served and you are asked to appear personally alongwith the replies to the show cause before the committee for hearing in the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 19.05.2011 at 11:00 AM positively alongwith all relevant papers/documents connected with your appointment/regularisation as Subject Teacher in Zoology, failing which ex-parte decision will be taken. This is issued in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court's order passed in PIL No. 14/2010 in original W.P. (C) No. 3178/2008 filed by Smt. Julekha Wahida Ahmed v. State of Assam and others. Disciplinary authority & Director Secondary Education, Assam Kahilipara, Ghy-19 2. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their replies disputing the contentions raised in the same. It was contended that contrary to the allegation made in the show cause notice that they were appointed pursuant to the selection made in October, 1995 by the particular Selection Board for 20 posts of Subject Teacher in Zoology advertised in June, 1992, the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement of 1989 and thus, their cases did not come within the purview of the task undertaken by the State Govt. in the Education Department to find out the illegality/irregularity in respect of 1995 selection. 3. According to the petitioners, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam while passing the impugned orders dated 07.06.2011 was guided by the directives of the State Govt. to terminate the services of the petitioners and thus there was no independent application of mind. It has also been contended that the impugned orders have been passed by the said Director without due consultation of the judgment passed in the PIL. In this connection, the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 has referred to one of the orders passed in the said PIL proceeding which is dated 08.06.2009. It has also been contended that the impugned orders have been passed by the said Director without due consultation of the judgment passed in the PIL. In this connection, the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 has referred to one of the orders passed in the said PIL proceeding which is dated 08.06.2009. Responding to the stand of the petitioner in the said proceeding that he was appointed in 1989 and his service was regularised in 1991, the Division Bench clearly recorded the finding that since the PIL proceeding was concerned with the recruitment process of 1995, the name of the petitioner was unnecessarily dragged in the writ petition and that the writ petitioner involved in the PIL cannot have any grievance against the said respondent No. 18, i.e. the present petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011. 4. In view of the above categorical finding of the Division Bench in the PIL proceeding, the case of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 stood excluded from the purview of the proceeding pertaining to 1995 selection and thus could not have been taken up by the respondents by way of issuance of show cause notices followed by the impugned order of termination. For a ready reference the aforesaid finding recorded by the Division Bench in its order dated 16.03.2009 is reproduced below : Insofar as the respondent No. 18 is concerned, Mr. B.D. Das, Learned Counsel submitted, on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Director of Secondary Education dated 07.06.2009, that he entered the service in the year 1989 and his service was regularised in the year 1991, that is long prior to the recruitment process which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present writ petition, that is the recruitment process of 1995 and, therefore, his name is unnecessarily dragged in the writ petition and the writ petitioner cannot have any grievance against his regularisation of service. Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned State Counsel on the basis of the above mentioned affidavit submitted that there appears to be some irregularity in the regularisation process of the service of the respondent No. 18 in view of the facts narrated in the affidavit. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is some irregularity in regularising the service of the respondent No. 18, such a regularisation took place admittedly in the year 1991. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is some irregularity in regularising the service of the respondent No. 18, such a regularisation took place admittedly in the year 1991. Therefore, the regularisation of the service of respondent No. 18 is legally tenable or not cannot be the subject-matter of dispute in the present writ petition, at any rate not at the instance of the writ petitioner who is asserting her rights on the basis of her participation in a selection process which took place in the year 1995. Therefore, the present writ petition, insofar as the respondent No. 18 is concerned, stands dismissed. 5. In so far as the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011 is concerned, in the PIL judgment there is some sort of observation against her appointment. It will be pertinent to mention here that having regard to the nature of the allegations made, the initial writ petition was converted to PIL and the case was monitored by the Court. The Division Bench recorded its finding that several undeserving persons were given appointments on regular basis. However, it was observed that the relevant records pertaining to such appointments as well as the proceeding of the particular screening committee could not be made available for Court's own scrutiny. In such circumstances, the Court issued the following direction: 10. In this case it has become quite apparent that undeserving candidates were appointed during 1995-2001 to the posts of Zoology Subject Teachers in different provincialised Higher Secondary Schools in Assam. When such illegal appointments are found to have been made appropriate judicial order(s) for termination of such illegal appointment has to follow. In the present case however all such appointees are not before the Court i.e. Smti. Manimala Kakoti, Smti. Banti Talukdar, Smti. Gitanjali Deka (from Group-A); Smti. Bijuli Chakraborty (from Group-B) and Smti Dipali Bora (from Group-C). All the relevant facts, i.e. circumstances in which the 7 regularisation under Group-B and 3 regularisation under Group-C were made are not before the Court. Whether such regularisation was against the advertised posts and if not what had happened to the advertised posts is also not known with certainty. In such circumstances it may not be appropriate for the Court to pass any order for cancellation of the appointments. Whether such regularisation was against the advertised posts and if not what had happened to the advertised posts is also not known with certainty. In such circumstances it may not be appropriate for the Court to pass any order for cancellation of the appointments. But considering the information gathered by the SIT, we deem it appropriate to direct the State to take into account the report of the SIT and thereafter take appropriate steps to discontinue the services of such appointees who got undeserved appointments. Of course if any adverse action is to be taken against any appointee, they ought to be given an opportunity before termination orders are issued. 11. Since relevant Government records pertaining to appointment in public offices have gone missing and were consequently withheld from scrutiny of the Court, necessary steps be taken by the State to unearth the missing records. Departmental action be taken against the persons identified by the SIT as responsible for the above. The State must also fix responsibility and proceed against the errant officials who may be found to be responsible for the appointments that may be eventually set aside by the State. 6. Pursuant to such direction of this Court, some communications were made between the Govt. and the Directorate in the Education Department as a consequence of which the show cause notice referred to above had been issued to the petitioners in response to which they also submitted their replies inter alia with the plea that their cases were required to be excluded as they were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1989 and not pursuant to the selection conducted in 1995. In this connection, the petitioners have also annexed the copies of their appointment orders in the writ petitions as well as the select list prepared in March, 1989 in which their names appeared. 7. While the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 was appointed by order dated 28.02.1992 for a limited duration of three months with time to time extension with final regular appointment vide order dated 05.07.1993, the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011 was appointed by order dated 03.04.1991. Prior to that, she was appointed in 1985 as Subject Teacher/Demonstrator in Biology vide order dated 08.02.1985. Prior to that, she was appointed in 1985 as Subject Teacher/Demonstrator in Biology vide order dated 08.02.1985. In the appointment order dated 03.04.1991 it was indicated that her service would continue till the return of the incumbent one Shri Ranjit Bordoloi who had gone on lien. It is not the case of the respondents that said Shri Ranjit Bordoloi has returned to his post. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the petitioner in her affidavit in reply categorically stating that the said incumbent did not return to the post. 8. When the above aspects of the matter are viewed, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents could not have taken up the cases of the petitioners towards adopting the particular course of action in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 passed in PIL No. 14/2010 which admittedly was pertaining to 1995 selection. 9. Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. D. Nath, Learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, submits that the impugned orders depict total non-application of mind, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam alongwith Mr. RN. Goswami, learned SC, Education Department submits that the impugned action having been taken on the basis of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report and the same having been duly taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid PIL proceeding, such action of the respondents on the basis of the said report and the aforesaid judgment in the PIL is required to be sustained. On being pointed out that the case of the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 was specifically excluded from the purview of the PIL proceeding by the above quoted order dated 16.03.2009, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that irrespective of the said finding and/or exclusion, it was within the competence and jurisdiction of the State Government in the Education Department to appreciate the relevant facts towards termination of the services of the said petitioner. As regards the appointment of the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011, he submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid PIL proceeding having categorically held that her appointment was illegal, there is no wrong in dispensing with her services with due notice to her. 10. As regards the appointment of the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011, he submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid PIL proceeding having categorically held that her appointment was illegal, there is no wrong in dispensing with her services with due notice to her. 10. In the final judgment and order in PIL proceeding no finality was given in the matter of illegal appointments purportedly made pursuant to 1995 selection. True it is, that certain observations were made in the said judgment and order, but following the principles of fair play and natural justice, the Division Bench provided for due opportunity of being heard to the teachers whose services were likely to be terminated. Needless to say that such a course of action was not an empty formality. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 10.05.2011 copy of which has been reproduced above. The show cause notice itself referred to the advertisement made in June, 1992 and the selection that was conducted in October, 1995. According to the show cause notice, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to 1995 selection in an illegal manner. In the show cause reply furnished by the petitioner, she had stated the relevant facts indicated above. In her reply to the show cause notice, she had categorically stated about her service as Demonstrator in Biology in the year 1985 followed by her selection for the post of Subject Teacher in Zoology in 1989. In her reply to the show cause notice, she also stated her appointment as Teacher by order dated 03.04.1991. All these facts stated in the show cause reply ought to have considered by the Director of Secondary Education while passing the impugned order dated 07.06.2011. When the very basis of the show cause notice, i.e. illegal/irregular appointment pursuant to 1995 selection had fallen through, there is no question of terminating the services of the petitioners on the basis of the said ground. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents have argued that even if the petitioners were not appointed pursuant to 1995 selection, but their appointments based on 1989 advertisement and selection thereof being illegal, there is nothing wrong in terminating their services. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents have argued that even if the petitioners were not appointed pursuant to 1995 selection, but their appointments based on 1989 advertisement and selection thereof being illegal, there is nothing wrong in terminating their services. In this connection, it has been argued that since the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011 was appointed against a lien vacancy, her service is liable to be terminated. It has also been argued that the two petitioners having been appointed beyond the validity period of the select list which was prepared pursuant to 1989 advertisement, their appointments were illegal. 13. Suffice it to say none of the aforesaid two grounds was made known to the petitioners in the said show cause notices. The impugned order also does not reflect the said two grounds. In the affidavit in reply, the petitioners have contended that during the relevant period of time the validity of the select list was till such time a new select list was prepared and thus the petitioners could be appointed during the validity period of the select list. Be that as it may, it is needless to say that an order will have to be judged on the basis of the materials contained therein on the date of issuance of the said order. The authority issuing the order cannot be permitted to develop its case with the passage of time by filing affidavit or urging different grounds. In this connection, observation of the Apex Court in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., may be referred to in which the Apex Court inter alia observed thus : 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so motioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 14. As noted above, both the show cause notices are in the same format with identical words. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 14. As noted above, both the show cause notices are in the same format with identical words. The impugned orders are also identically worded which will go to show that the facts involved in both the cases about which discussions have been made above had not been taken into account while passing the same. It gives an impression that the Director of Secondary Education was solely guided by the SIT report and the observations made in the PIL proceeding unmindful of the fact that irrespective of the said report and the order a duty was cast on him to examine each and every case on the basis of the facts involved in each one of the cases, so much so that even the exclusion of the case of the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 from the purview of the PIL proceeding was also not taken note of. 15. It was submitted that since the SIT report has indicted the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011, this Court is bound to accept the said report. The Division Bench duly took note of the said SIT report in the aforesaid PIL proceeding. It was a fact finding enquiry and the findings were reflected in the order passed by the Division Bench in the PIL proceeding. It was provided that the affected parties must be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Such opportunity cannot be an empty formality by way of mere issuance of show cause notice and then to pass an order of termination of service in the same format and with same contents. Facts will have to be gone into in each one of the cases which admittedly the Director of Secondary Education did not go through while passing the impugned orders. If the SIT report was to be the basis of termination of service of the petitioners, this Court dealing with the PIL would have passed an appropriate order for termination of the services of the petitioners and would not have provided for an opportunity of being heard to them. Such opportunity must be with due application of the principles involved in such hearing and not otherwise. 16. Mr. Such opportunity must be with due application of the principles involved in such hearing and not otherwise. 16. Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a number of decisions to bring home his point of argument that service of permanent employees cannot be terminated without due enquiry as emphasised in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, In view of my findings recorded above, the decisions need not be discussed in detail. The said decisions are as follows : (1) (2006) 4 SCC 348 , A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General, Hyderabad & Anr.; (2) (2008) 14 SCC 151, Sahara India (FIRM) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr.; (3) (2008) 16 SCC 276 Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.; (4) 2011 (4) GLT 619, State of Tripura and Ors. v. Puranjoy Nath and Ors.; (5) (2007) 8 SCC 264 , M.P. State Cooperation Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav and Ors.; (6) (1978) 1 SCC 405 , Mohindhr Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors.; (7) (2009) 14 SCC 85 , V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner & Ors. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed by setting aside and quashing the impugned orders dated 07.06.2011. Consequently, the petitioners shall be deemed to be continuing in their respective services as Subject Teacher in Zoology with all consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed