Order : Since common questions are involved in all these three writ applications, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondent Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited. 3. Petitioners, working as Account Assistants/Head Clerk in the then Jharkhand State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as 'JSEB'), now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., (herein after referred to as 'Nigam'), are aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2014 issued by the respondent No.3, Joint Secretary of the Nigam, as contained in Annexure–8 in W.P.(S) No.5868 of 2014 and Annexures-10 to the other two writ applications, whereby their appointments to the posts of Accounts Officer have been canceled, holding the same to be illegally and irregularly made, and they have been reverted back to the posts of Accounts Assistant/Head Clerk, on which they were earlier working prior to the said appointment. 4. The facts of this case lie in short compass. The erstwhile JSEB had issued an advertisement No. 1/2007 for direct recruitment on 17 posts of Accounts Officers. In the said advertisement, the minimum qualification of the candidates was mentioned as Charted Accountant or ICWA or MBA in Finance from any reputed Government recognised Institutions/Universities. The maximum age limit for the candidates was 32 years, which was relaxed up to 50 years for the qualified employees of the JSEB. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners, who were working under the JSEB also gave their applications for the said post. The recruitment process was assigned to Xavier Labour Relation Institute (XLRI), Jamshedpur, which conducted the examination and prepared the selection list. The selection list has been brought on record as Annexure–2 to the writ applications, which is dated 16.12.2007. By the said letter, the list of selected candidates in various categories was forwarded to the then JSEB. So far as these petitioners are concerned, their names were not shown in the selected list, rather their names were only given under the heading 'the Panel of JSEB employees in the order of merit'. By the said letter, the list of selected candidates in various categories was forwarded to the then JSEB. So far as these petitioners are concerned, their names were not shown in the selected list, rather their names were only given under the heading 'the Panel of JSEB employees in the order of merit'. Thereafter, somehow, appointments of the internal candidates were also made against the vacancies notified for the direct recruitment and the petitioners were also appointed on the post of Accounts Officers along with other candidates vide notification issued by the then JSEB on 16.8.2008 and 18.8.2008, which have been brought on record as Annexure–4 to the writ applications. Subsequently, it was found that the appointments of the petitioners, who were the internal candidates of the JSEB, were made against the posts of Account Officer to be filled up by direct recruitment, and the petitioners were not having the required qualification for the said post. Accordingly, the notice was given to the petitioners to show cause as to why their selection be not terminated and after considering the representations of the petitioners, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2014, the appointments of the petitioners as Accounts Officers were canceled and the petitioners were reverted back to their original posts, on which they were working prior to their appointment as Accounts Officers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.3 is absolutely illegal and bad in the eyes of law, in as much as, the petitioners were appointed after completing the due process of selection and the petitioners being the internal candidates, were entitled to apply for the same, they applied for the same and they were selected for the post and only thereafter the petitioners were appointed on the said post. It is submitted that there was no illegality/irregularity in the appointment of the petitioners. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order dated 10.11.2014, as contained in Annexure-8 in W.P.(S) No.5868 of 2014 and Annexures-10 to the other two writ applications, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the Nigam on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out the illegalities/irregularities committed in the appointment of the petitioners, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Nigam. 6. Learned counsel for the Nigam on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out the illegalities/irregularities committed in the appointment of the petitioners, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Nigam. It is pointed out that the then JSEB had initiated the proposal for appointment on 17 posts of Accounts Officers by way of Direct Recruitment only and the advertisement was issued accordingly, in which only age relaxation was given to those employees of the Board, who were holding the minimum qualification. It has also been pointed that the appointment to the post of Accounts Officers was to be done in accordance with Rules framed by the then Bihar State Electricity Board in the year 1991, which was also published in the Bihar Gazette, which has been brought on record as Annexure–A to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that after advertisement was issued, the XLRI was selected as selection agency by letter dated 8.6.2007, as contained in Annexure–B to the counter affidavit and XLRI was informed that selection of suitable candidates for the post of Accounts Officers has to be made from open market. Learned counsel for the respondent Nigam has pointed out from the counter affidavit, that one Umesh Kumar, who was working as Director of Finance, managed himself to be nominated as Coordinator and he illegally initiated the process of appointment of internal employees of the JSEB, from the advertisement made for direct recruitment. It is submitted that being Coordinator of the selection process, had written a letter dated 15.12.2007 asking the XLRI to provide the separate panel of JSEB employees, who had appeared in the written examination and interview for the post of Accounts Officers, who were to be considered against the internal candidates quota and thereafter, on getting the panel, he initiated the process for appointment of the employees against the internal candidates quota for which there was no advertisement. It is pointed out from the counter affidavit that the proposal was given by Shri Umesh Kumar, Director Finance, who was working as Coordinator and the matter was placed before the Board and the appointment of the petitioners were also approved, even though the posts for internal candidates was never advertised, and the petitioners had not competed for selection as direct recruits. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the Nigam that the departmental action has also been initiated against said Umesh Kumar, the Director of Finance of the Nigam. Learned counsel for the Nigam accordingly, submitted that the appointment of the petitioners is absolutely illegal and when the matter was placed before the Nigam, the Nigam decided to strike down those appointments after taking advice from the Senior Legal Advisor and accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and after consideration of the representation of the petitioners, the illegal appointments of the petitioners have been canceled and the petitioners have been reverted back to their respective original posts. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after their appointment as Accounts Officers in the year 2008, they worked on the said post till the year 2014, when their selection was ultimately canceled. However, it is admitted fact that the advertisement, which was published for selection on the post of Accounts Officers, was for direct recruitment and not for internal candidates quota of the Nigam. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Nigam that the advertisement was never issued for the selection of internal candidates/employees of the Nigam, rather the post were advertised for direct recruitment from open market. In the said advertisement, only age relaxation up to 50 years was given to the qualified employees of the then JSEB, for giving them equal opportunity to compete with the candidates from open market and the selection had to be made according to the merits only. The selection process was completed and the name of the selected candidates was also forwarded by the XLRI to the then JSEB, but the names of the petitioners did not find place in the list of selected candidates. This apart, the 1991 Rules, which have been brought on record as Annexure–A to the counter affidavit clearly shows that the post of Accounts Officers are to be filled up by direct recruitment as also through promotion. For direct recruitment, the prescribed qualification is charted accountants or ICWA or MBA in Finance from any Government recognised Institutions/Universities, whereas for promotion, the Rules provide that feeder post for promotion of the Accounts Officers is from Accountant/Junior Accounts Officer. For direct recruitment, the prescribed qualification is charted accountants or ICWA or MBA in Finance from any Government recognised Institutions/Universities, whereas for promotion, the Rules provide that feeder post for promotion of the Accounts Officers is from Accountant/Junior Accounts Officer. The documents brought on record clearly show that the petitioners were neither working as Accountant nor Junior Accounts Officer, rather the petitioners were working on the post of Accounts Assistants and Head Clerk. In other words, the petitioners were not even working on the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, and as such they could not be considered even for promotion as internal candidates, and for the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, the petitioners could not compete and their names did not find in the list of selected candidates. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that the appointments of the petitioners as Accounts Officer against the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, are ab initio absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The petitioners have rightly been given the notice to show cause as to why their appointments as be not canceled and upon giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners, their appointments have been canceled. In my considered view, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed by Respondent No.3 as contained in Annexure–8 in W.P.(S) No.5868 of 2014 and Annexure-10 to the other two writ applications. 10. There is no merit in these writ applications and the same are accordingly, dismissed. Applications dismissed.