ORAL ORDER 1. This case shows how desperate senior officers at district level are to make appointments, cancel them and make appointments again. 2. Counter affidavit is on record. With consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by orders of the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Gopalganj by which their contractual appointments as Amin have been cancelled and now efforts are being made to make fresh contractual appointments. The ground of challenge is not only that the action was wholly without jurisdiction, it was patently mala fide as well. 4. It appears that large number of vacancies were there and occurring in the regular cadre of Amins in the State in different districts. Accordingly, Government took a decision in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. This decision, as communicated by the Government to all Divisional Commissioners and District Magistrates –cum- Collectors is dated 03.12.2005 and is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This Government decision, as communicated, is that the vacancies may be filled up by reemploying healthy retired Amins whose reemployment would be for a period of two years or till regular appointments are made, whichever is earlier. Such reemployment should not be offered to people who are above 62 years of age. It further provides that where more than 25% of the post in any district in respect of Amin, Halqa Karamchari, Anchal Nirichak are vacant, those posts must be filled up on contractual appointments. It is further provided that it being contractual appointment, it could be terminated with one month’s notice. It was further provided that these appointments would continue till regular appointments in the cadre are made and upon such appointments being made, these contractual appointments would automatically come to an end. It is further provided that in case of Circle Inspector (Anchal Nirichak), the appointments will be made by Divisional Commissioner and the appointment shall be communicated to the Government. It was further provided that the honorarium paid to these contractual appointees be calculated and if additional finance is required, the same may be sought from the Revenue Department. It is further provided that in case of Circle Inspector (Anchal Nirichak), the appointments will be made by Divisional Commissioner and the appointment shall be communicated to the Government. It was further provided that the honorarium paid to these contractual appointees be calculated and if additional finance is required, the same may be sought from the Revenue Department. This last clause with regard to payment was necessary because all these appointments were being made on sanctioned vacant posts and that being so, there would hardly be any occasion for demand of additional finance from the State because for the sanctioned posts, funds were already available. It is pursuant to this that petitioners were selected and appointed as contractual Amins. Petitioners are all young men. They are not retired Amins or employees of the State. In fact barring one, rest are below 35 years of age. Their appointment letters are Annexure 4 etc to the writ petition. Their appointment letter is signed by the Collector, Gopalganj and it is dated 26.12.2006. It has 10 conditions stipulated therein. The relevant ones are contained in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. Clause 4 provides that this contractual appointment is purely temporary. Clause 5 provides that contractual appointment would entitle the Amin to a payment of Rs 3,000/- per month as honorarium. Clause 6 provides that beyond the agreement, no further claim would be entertained for the period of employment. Clause 7 stipulates that this contractual appointment would stand automatically terminated upon regular appointments in the cadre. Pursuant to these appointment letters, petitioners join. 5. It appears that there was no dispute for some time from any quarters. It appears in this district alone that is district of Gopalganj suddenly works were stopped being taken and the paltry honorarium they were being paid were also stopped. This forced them to come to this Court in CWJC No 11396 of 2009 which was disposed of by order dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure 19 to the writ petition). Before this Court, a specific stand was taken on behalf of the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Gopalganj that Amins on regular basis have already been appointed. Accordingly, in terms of Clause 7 of the letter of appointment, their contractual appointments automatically stood terminated. This was contested by the petitioners. 6. However, this Court noticed that the petitioners had made representation before the Collector and the Collector must decide the same. Accordingly, in terms of Clause 7 of the letter of appointment, their contractual appointments automatically stood terminated. This was contested by the petitioners. 6. However, this Court noticed that the petitioners had made representation before the Collector and the Collector must decide the same. It appears Collector did subsequently upon writ petition being disposed of decide the same and the decision is Annexure 21 to the writ petition which is of some significance and is dated 12.09.2009. In this disposal of the representation, the stand as taken before the High Court was totally given a goby by the Collector. What is stated is that consequent to the appointment of petitioners on contractual basis, information was sent to the State in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms and no approval for appointment has been received. It was further stated that proper procedure for appointment was not followed and, therefore, their appointments were being cancelled with immediate effect. What was not followed, under what provision approval was required, nothing stated. As noticed above, the stand before the High Court that regular appointments having been made, the appointments of petitioners stood automatically terminated but now the same very Collector by Annexure 21 gives a complete goby to the plea earlier taken before this Court which action is totally unwarranted as there is neither any requirement of taking any approval from the Department. Nothing has been stated as to what was irregular in the appointment process. No such plea had been taken before the High Court, if in fact there was any such defect. It appears thereafter again, pursuant to the aforesaid writ petition, Collector reconsidered the matter and passed fresh orders trying to justify the cancellation of contractual appointments. This order is dated 09.12.2009 by the same Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Gopalganj and is contained in Annexure 22 which is the impugned annexure in this writ petition. Here, giving a goby to the earlier stand taken before the High Court, giving a goby to the stand taken in Annexure 21, he now manufactures a new ground. He states in the order that the contractual appointments, by virtue of Clauses 4 and 6 of the letter of appointment being purely temporary and creating no right, could be cancelled as there was no reason to continue them in service. He states in the order that the contractual appointments, by virtue of Clauses 4 and 6 of the letter of appointment being purely temporary and creating no right, could be cancelled as there was no reason to continue them in service. He further states that after more than two years eight months of service, their appointments had to be cancelled because he suddenly realized that District Magistrate –cum- Collector had no authority to make these appointments and further that approval of appointments, as made, had not been received from the State. Therefore, there was no reason for extending the service further. So far as payment of arrears are concerned, Departments were directed to pay the same, a wholly mala fide order. 7. Firstly, the appointment itself under direction of the State clearly indicated the tenure of appointment. Annexure 1, the direction of the State that the appointment so made on contractual basis would continue up to the regular appointments. Thus, except on disciplinary grounds, there could be no short termination. Merely because these are contractual temporary appointments do not mean that State or its functionary is absolved of its responsibility under Article 14 of the Constitution. Feudalistic State has come to an end. We are governed by Constitution and constitutional norms. We are not dependent upon whims and fancies of individual officers. The ground given is that Collector was not authorized to make these appointments. Why and how this is said is not indicated? It is by virtue of the last part that is Clause 9 of Annexure 1 where power to appoint by the State has been given to the Divisional Commissioner. The Collector of the district has deliberately tried to mislead everybody. This Clause 9 is in respect of Circle Inspector (Anchal Nirichak) alone and not to Amin. This is a new ground now manufactured by the district Collector, a ground which has not been taken before the High Court, a ground which is not mentioned in Annexure 21. Then again he mentions that there is no approval from the State. Where was approval required is not stated? Then when it comes to payment, the directive of the State, as noticed above, is clear. It has to be paid at the district level itself unless excess payments are required which never happened. Then again he mentions that there is no approval from the State. Where was approval required is not stated? Then when it comes to payment, the directive of the State, as noticed above, is clear. It has to be paid at the district level itself unless excess payments are required which never happened. Regular Amins surely were paid much more than Rs 3,000/- honorarium that is to be paid to the petitioners. Petitioners were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts. There were already budgetary allocations for these posts. 8. Thus, in my view, this deliberately shifting stand of the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Gopalganj speaks volumes of his bona fide. 9. Again today, on behalf of the Director, Land Acquisition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Gopalganj where again such baseless stands are taken. Here again, it is stated that so far as Amins are concerned, appointments had to be only for two years, which I had already shown, was not applicable to the petitioners. They were not being reemployed. Again, a stand is taken that if no regular appointment is made within two years they should automatically be terminated. There is no such policy guideline available on record. This counter affidavit further shows how desperate the district authorities to get rid of these people and to justify their illegal action by any method. 10. In my view, for the reasons aforesaid, it is clear that the order of termination of contractual service of the petitioner without there being a regular appointment in the cadre cannot be sustained in fact or in law. It is wholly arbitrary, mala fide in law. It is the manner in which the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Gopalganj has changed his stand from time to time justifying termination is a serious matter. 11. Thus, while setting aside the order of termination and directing the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Gopalganj to reinstate the petitioners forthwith and clear all arrears deeming them to be in service right through on contractual basis up to date and clearing them within three months from today, in the facts and circumstances, I deem it proper that this matter be enquired by State Cabinet Vigilance Department as against the officials involved in this scandalous cancellation of contractual appointments after enquiry into the matter in respect of conduct of officials at district level. The State Cabinet Vigilance Department would submit a report to this Court within one month from the date of receiving a copy of order of this Court with its recommendation with regard to starting proceedings under the provisions of Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practice Act, 1983 against the officers found guilty upon the enquiry. 12. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of except in relation to matter of report by the State Cabinet Vigilance Department in this regard.