JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has been discharged from service by the impugned order bearing memo no. 2638 dated 24.9.2012 issued by the Director, Secondary Education cum Joint Secretary, Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no. 4 (Annexure-20). Petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and reinstatement in service on the post of clerk in Amar Shahid Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo Zila School, Ranchi with all consequential benefits. 3. Services of the petitioner were terminated earlier by an order passed on 4.7.2002 by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar on the ground that his appointment was illegal. The said order was challenged in W.P. (S) No. 4321 of 2002 and by the judgment dated 27.6.2007, following the ratio laid down in the case of Arbind Vijay Bilung vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) JCR 155 , the order dated 4.7.2002 was set aside. The said judgment is at Annexure-10 of the writ petition and is quoted herein-below:- "Heard Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.7.2002, passed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, terminating his service on the ground that his appointment was illegal. Mr. Anwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the judgment of Arbind Vijay Bilung vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) JCR 155 , the State of Bihar could not have passed the said order after bifurcation of States and at best it could sent the records of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand for taking a decision in the matter. He further submitted that petitioner's appointment was not illegal. On 4.9.2002, the following interim order was passed:- "Counsels for the State of Bihar & Jharkhand are allowed four weeks time to obtain and file counter affidavit. Place the case for admission in usual course. The Jharkhand State authorities will not act on the letter dated 4th July, 2002, if not yet acted upon but may pass independent order in accordance with the law." Counsel for the State of Jharkhand with reference to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi has constituted a Committee to enquire into the illegality of the appointment of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has appeared before the Committee. In the circumstances, following the said judgment of Arvind Vijay Bilong (supra), the order dated 4.7.2002 is set aside. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has appeared before the Committee. In the circumstances, following the said judgment of Arvind Vijay Bilong (supra), the order dated 4.7.2002 is set aside. If the records have not been sent, it must be sent by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar to his counter part in Jharkhand immediately. Petitioner will file his show cause within four weeks from today along with supporting documents, if any. The committee will take a decision after hearing the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of such show cause, if any and submit its report to the Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Jharkhand, Ranchi with a copy to the petitioner. If the enquiry report goes against him, petitioner may file his show cause against it before the Director within two weeks from the receipt thereof. The Director will pass speaking order, in accordance with law within four weeks, thereafter. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Let a copy of the order be given to the counsels for the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, as prayed." 4. The petitioner was initially appointed on 12.2.1983 as an Assistant Teacher in Urdu in Zila School, Motihari, East Champaran in Matric Trained Scale by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur vide Annexure-1. Petitioner was however relieved from the said post by Annexure-2 dated 14.3.1988 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar on joining of another person as Assistant Teacher in Pharsi in the said school. Thereafter, by Annexure-3 dated 13.12.1988 bearing memo no. 912 issued by the Director, Secondary Education cum Joint Secretary, Bihar, petitioner was again appointed on a sanctioned post of Clerk in the scale of Rs. 580-860 in +2 section of Government Girls High School, Ranchi on temporary basis. The period of five years spent earlier as an Assistant Teacher was regularized by the said order. The said order also indicates that the petitioner was earlier appointed purely on ad-hoc basis and he did not have the qualification of a Urdu Teacher. 5. The petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking regularization of his services on the post of Assistant Teacher in CWJC No. 730 of 1995 (R). The said order also indicates that the petitioner was earlier appointed purely on ad-hoc basis and he did not have the qualification of a Urdu Teacher. 5. The petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking regularization of his services on the post of Assistant Teacher in CWJC No. 730 of 1995 (R). The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.08.1995 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner within a stipulated period. The petitioner continued thereafter in service as a Clerk. He was issued a show-cause notice on 22.05.2000 by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar as to why his irregular appointment be not terminated as the same had been done without following the procedure and the reservation roster and that it was done by an authority who was not competent to do so. The said show-cause is at annexure-7 which indicates that his appointment as a Clerk was made by the then Director, Secondary Education being guided by the earlier irregular appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply through the Principal of the school as communicated through letter dated 02.06.2000 (Annexure-8). Thereafter, the earlier order of termination was passed on 04.07.2002 (Annexure-9) treating the services of the petitioner as irregular/illegal. The said order was quashed by this Court earlier on the ground that the authority under the State of Bihar was not competent to issue the order of termination of an employee who had subsequently been serving the State of Jharkhand as per ratio laid down in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilong (supra). Perusal of the said judgment indicates that during the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 04.09.2002 inter-alia observing that the Jharkhand State authorities will not act on the letter dated 04.07.2002, if not yet acted upon, but may pass independent order in accordance with law. It further appears that the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand had constituted a committee to inquire into the illegality of the appointment of the petitioner. Learned Court was also informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared before the committee. It further appears that the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand had constituted a committee to inquire into the illegality of the appointment of the petitioner. Learned Court was also informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared before the committee. Learned Single Judge on the said occasion, however, after setting aside the order of termination, made the following observations and directions i.e. If the records have not been sent, it must be sent by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar to his counter part in Jharkhand immediately. Petitioner will file his show cause within four weeks from today along with supporting documents, if any. The committee will take a decision after hearing the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of such show cause, if any and submit its report to the Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Jharkhand, Ranchi with a copy to the petitioner. If the enquiry report goes against him, petitioner may file his show cause against it before the Director within two weeks from the receipt thereof. The Director will pass speaking order, in accordance with law within four weeks, thereafter. 6. After passing of the said judgment, a report was submitted by the Committee on 04.07.2007 which is at Annexure-13. A perusal of the report indicates that the committee held its meeting on 14.06.2007 i.e. before the date of the judgment after hearing the petitioner as well as the officials of the State and after going through the available records, it came to a finding that the appointment of the petitioner as a Clerk in 1988 was made without following the due procedure, without any advertisement and without following the reservation roster by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar giving the benefit of his previous appointment which also had been done without following any due procedure. Respondents thereafter issued a second show-cause notice on 25.10.2007 to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply in respect of findings of the said Inquiry Committee dated 04.07.2007, as per which, his appointment has been found to be illegal. However, subsequently the petitioner was communicated through letter dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure-14) issued by the Principal of the School of framing of charge against him by the Director, Secondary Education in respect of the allegations that his appointment was illegal. The said charge sheet is at annexure-14/A dated 10.12.2008. However, subsequently the petitioner was communicated through letter dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure-14) issued by the Principal of the School of framing of charge against him by the Director, Secondary Education in respect of the allegations that his appointment was illegal. The said charge sheet is at annexure-14/A dated 10.12.2008. A perusal of Annexure-16 dated 17.12.2008 indicates that the petitioner was subjected to departmental inquiry in respect of which the charge-sheet were issued. The petitioner seems to have submitted his reply on 25.02.2009 enclosing several documents which is at annexure-15. The Director, Secondary Education however issued another order on 16.2.2010 bearing memo no. 456, Annexure-17 inter-alia holding that the committee had already submitted its report on 4.7.2007 treating the services of the petitioner as illegal and the petitioner had been issued the second show cause notice, thereafter on 7.8.2007 and 25.10.2007. Therefore, there was no occasion to put the petitioner under the departmental proceeding. The earlier order bearing memo no. 3031 dated 17.12.2008 by which the departmental proceedings were initiated were revoked. Petitioner was again served with a notice on 16.2.2010 itself asking him to show cause as against the findings of the enquiry report dated 4.7.2007. Petitioner again seems to have furnished his reply vide Annexure-19 dated 3.3.2010. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Director, Secondary Education which is at Annexure-20 to the writ petition on 24.9.2012. 7. By the impugned order, it has been held that upon due consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Committee and the representation of the petitioner and the available records, it was concluded that the petitioner's appointment was made without due procedure, without any advertisement and without following the reservation roster by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar in the year 1988 as a Clerk. The benefit of previous irregular/illegal appointment of the petitioner could not have given by making such appointment. Therefore, treating the services of the petitioner as illegal, appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled as he had failed to furnish any satisfactory answer or evidence in support of validity of his appointment. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that directions/observations passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the previous order of termination, has not been followed and the impugned order has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that directions/observations passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the previous order of termination, has not been followed and the impugned order has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was on the sanctioned post of Clerk in +2 section of the Government Girls High School, Ranchi as is evident from appointment letter (Annexure-3) issued by the Director, Secondary Education who was the competent authority. It is submitted that the petitioner has the qualification of B.A. (Hons.) in Psychology as well as B.Ed. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not interested in claiming any benefit of his previous appointment as an Assistant Teacher (Urdu) made in the year 1983, but there is nothing illegal in his appointment made in the year 1988 by the Director, Secondary Education. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner even if irregular i.e. without following the due procedure of advertisement and reservation roster, is not illegal as it has been made against the sanctioned post and that he also had the requisite qualification for the same. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka & Others vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even after such long years of service, such an order of termination is unjustified and that too, when the principles of natural justice has not been followed after specific direction passed by the learned Single Judge earlier. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Amerandra Kumar & Others, 2007 (4) JCR 58 , in the case of Kishore Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2003 (2) JLJR 270 , in the case of Sumant Kumar & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2003 (3) JLJR 586 and also in the case of Roshni Devi & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 1998 (8) SCC 59 in support of the aforesaid submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that while the show cause was initially issued in the year 2000, against two persons i.e. petitioner and one Vijay Pratap Narayan Singh, but the appointment of Vijay Pratap Narayan Singh has been found to be proper by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar as per his order at Annexure 21/B dated 6.9.2003. The petitioner has unfairly been treated after remaining in service for 24 years since 1988, and his services have been terminated by the impugned order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand. 9. Learned counsel for the State has seriously contested the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order has been passed after following the Principles of Natural Justice and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee in which the petitioner also appeared after show cause. It is further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made without proper procedure and he did not have the requisite qualification of Urdu Teacher when he was appointed in March, 1983 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education who was not the competent authority. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that petitioner has failed to show any solid proof and documents in his favour that his appointment was proper and valid in the eye of law. Therefore, after due compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice and on the basis of the report of the Committee submitted on 4.7.2007 itself, the petitioner has been terminated. In fact more than one show cause notice was issued to petitioner thereafter, but he failed to furnish any satisfactory reply to the same. 10. The factual road map of the case of the parties, which were relevant for considering the issue in controversy have been indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. As noticed earlier, while passing the judgment dated 27.6.2007, it is evident that respondents had brought to the notice of the learned Court that they had constituted a committee to inquire into the illegality of the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also informed that he had appeared before the Committee. It appears that the Committee had held one of its meetings on 14.6.2007 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also informed that he had appeared before the Committee. It appears that the Committee had held one of its meetings on 14.6.2007 itself. Therefore, both the petitioner and the respondents had duly apprised the Court about the development that had taken place by then indicating the fact that the petitioner had appeared before the Committee constituted by the respondents. However, learned Single Judge after quashing the order of termination passed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education of the State of Bihar, on the basis of the ratio laid down in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilong (supra) considered it proper to allow the petitioner to file his show cause within 4 weeks from the date of the judgment along with the supporting documents, if any. The Committee, in fact was directed to take a decision after hearing the petitioner within 6 weeks, thereafter and submit the report to the Director, Secondary Education with a copy to the petitioner. It was also directed that if inquiry report went against the petitioner, he may file his show cause against it before the Director within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy thereof, where after the Director would pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 11. It therefore appears that despite the fact that the petitioner had earlier appeared before the Committee, this Court on the previous occasion considered it proper to give the petitioner adequate opportunity to present his case with all supporting documents before the Committee, which was constituted to take a decision on the issue of appointment of the petitioner and that too after hearing him. Subsequent conduct which has been narrated herein-above shows that the respondents on the one hand, straightaway issued a second show-cause notice upon the petitioner without giving him any further opportunity to file show-cause or without giving any opportunity to appear before the said committee and affording an opportunity of hearing, while on the other hand, they also chose to initiate a new departmental proceeding against the petitioner by framing charge thereafter. The said proceeding however was later on revoked once again by the respondents and thereafter again, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. However, the direction passed by this Court as aforesaid, do not appear to have been complied with in the manner indicated in its letter and spirit. The said proceeding however was later on revoked once again by the respondents and thereafter again, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. However, the direction passed by this Court as aforesaid, do not appear to have been complied with in the manner indicated in its letter and spirit. It appears that the learned Single Judge on the said occasion being conscious of the fact that the respondents had constituted a committee and the petitioner had also appeared before the same committee, did consider it necessary that a decision be arrived at only after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after he submits a show-cause before the said committee. 12. The appointment of the petitioner had admittedly continued since 1988. Therefore, it appears that the learned Court on the previous occasion found it necessary that before taking any final decision in the matter of his appointment, proper observance of principles of natural justice is followed. It however does not appear that the respondents gave any other opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the said committee which had already formed its opinion before the judgment was delivered, though the report is of the subsequent date. 13. Fairness in administrative action is considered an essential attribute of decision making process. This is one of the tenets of the principles of natural justice as well. Whether the service of the petitioner was irregular or illegal per-se, was the question to be determined after affording opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law since, the petitioner had continued in service all along since 1988 on the post of Clerk. From the order of appointment of the petitioner which was issued by the Director, Secondary Education himself vide annexure-3 dated 13.12.1988, it appears that he was appointed on a sanctioned post in +2 section of the High School and that the petitioner also claims to be B.A. (Hons.) in Psychology and having B.Ed. qualification. All these aspects therefore could have been properly considered if the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing before findings could have been arrived at by the committee. qualification. All these aspects therefore could have been properly considered if the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing before findings could have been arrived at by the committee. In any case, in view of the discussions which have been made herein-above, it appears that while on the one hand, petitioner's services have been terminated without following the direction passed by the learned Court on the previous occasion in the manner indicated therein and at the same time, he has been denied adequate opportunity of placing his case before the committee before any decision was taken. All these factors therefore do lead to a conclusion that the impugned order of discharge of the petitioner is not only violative of principles of natural justice but also in the teeth of the direction passed by this Court earlier. 14. In these circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand is quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in service, however with 25% of the back wages for the period he remained out of service. However, respondents are at liberty to take a fresh decision in the matter on the question of the legality and validity of the petitioner's appointment in accordance with law and after due compliance of the principles of natural justice, as per the directions passed in W.P. (S) No. 4321 of 2002 vide judgment dated 27.6.2007 in the petitioner's case. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.