ORDER 1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, State as also the respondents no. 5 and 6. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order vide Memo No. 18 dated 17th of January 2011 as contained in Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder regularization/recognition of the services of the petitioners which were granted to them, as per the Government Letter dated 24th of June 2008 (Annexure-8), was cancelled on the ground that petitioners were absent from duty for a long time and, as such, their names were removed from the attendance register of the school, in question, in the light of the spot inspection, carried on 7th of August 1999 by the District Education Officer, Darbhanga. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality, as the services of the petitioners were regularized which as such, could not have been cancelled allegedly due to absence from their duty constituting misconduct without holding a regular enquiry. It is further submitted that instead of holding regular departmental enquiry, the authority took recourse of terminating their services by way of cancelling the recognition of their service itself which is not permissible in law. 4. It is further contended that notwithstanding the above, respondent no. 2 has passed the order without appreciating the matter in issue in its correct perspective. The report of the District Education Officer, Darbhanga as per letter no. 706 dated 30th of December 1999 vide Annexure-7 states clearly that petitioners were not allowed to mark the regular attendance register and with the result, they were marking the attendance register separately with the approval of previous Secretary of the school. In the said report, it was also clearly stated that on enquiry it was found that these petitioners were attending the school and discharging their duty. The additional ground to assail the impugned is that the same is passed on the behest of the respondent no. 6, who happens to be the in-charge Headmistress of the school, in question, who used to furnish incorrect information about the petitioners. The attention of the court is drawn to the letter dated 16th of August 1999 annexure-C to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents no. 6, who happens to be the in-charge Headmistress of the school, in question, who used to furnish incorrect information about the petitioners. The attention of the court is drawn to the letter dated 16th of August 1999 annexure-C to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents no. 5 and 6, in order to show that the teachers, namely, Ashok Kumar Jha and Pankaj Kumar Jha, against whom the report is that they used to attend the school oftenly and even then, their names were mentioned in the category of the teachers, who were regularly doing the job vide letter dated 10th of May 2006, written by the respondent no. 5 as contained in Annexure – D to the counter affidavit. 5. In sum and substance, the submission is to the effect that on the question of law as also the fact, the order suffers from serious illegality and deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, submits that in case, there is any discrepancy in the report, submitted by the District Education officer, Darbhanga, the matter could be looked into by the Director again. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 and 6 submits that the petitioners have approached this court without availing the statutory remedy of appeal besides supporting the order on merits. It is contended that the name of the petitioners were removed from the attendance register, as they were not attending the school for a quite long time and as such, on inspection of the school made on 7th of August 1999 by the District Education Officer, Darbhanga, it was found that since the petitioners were continuously remaining absent from the duty and as such, the recognition of the services of the petitioners were rightly cancelled. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the action was taken after obtaining the orders from the Minister In-charge of the department and as such, there could be no valid appeal against the impugned order. 9. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the action was taken after obtaining the orders from the Minister In-charge of the department and as such, there could be no valid appeal against the impugned order. 9. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the relevant pleadings as well as impugned order, it would appear that services of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in the Project Girls High School, Anandpur, Darbhanga were recognized as per the letter dated 24th of June 2008 (Annexure-8) however, on the report of Headmistress of the School, the District Education Officer, Darbhanga, visited the school for spot inspection on 7th of August 1999 and directed for removing the name of the petitioners from the attendance register for being remained absent from the duty for long period. Accordingly, the Headmistress of the school sought for appropriate orders against the petitioners on account of their being remained absent and as such, after obtaining the orders from the Minister In-charge Department, a show cause notice was given and an explanation was sought for and after hearing the petitioners and Headmistress, the impugned order was passed. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the report of the District Education Officer, Darbhanga. The further report of the District Education Officer as per letter no. 706 dated 30th of December 1999 was also taken into consideration which was basis of the petitioners’ case that they were continuously working, however, they are not allowed by the Head Mistress of the school to mark the attendance register. The aforesaid letter dated 30th of December 1999 of the District Education Officer, Darbhanga was written in continuation of its previous letter dated 16.08.1999 with respect to the inspection of the school, carried on 7th of August 1999. The aforesaid letter dated 30th of December 1999 has been brought on the record as Annexure-7. On perusal of the said letter, it would appear that the District Education Officer, Darbhanga in view of the controversial issue, as to whether these petitioners were discharging their duty or not, made a spot enquiry and during enquiry, it was found by him that the petitioners were marking their attendance separately and were attending the school regularly as well as discharging their job work. The said report being subsequent to the report dated 16th of August 1999, which were referred in the letter dated 30th of December 1999. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga specifically, found that the petitioners were attending the school regularly and discharging their duty. Respondent no.2 did not consider the document, as contained in Annexure-7 in its correct perspective. Besides the above, the absence from the duty on the part of the petitioners, is said to be prior to 1999 and their services were recognized in the year 2008 as per the letter dated 24th of June 2008. It is not in dispute that no disciplinary action were taken against the petitioners for their act of remaining absent from the duty a serious misconduct at the material time. 10. For the reasons and discussions made above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly, quashed. 11. Both the writ applications stand allowed as indicated above.