JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. Barah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. M.R. Adhikary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. P. Naik, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were appointed to the Grade-IV under the Establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur vide office order dated 17.09.2007 (Annexure-H). Thereafter, their appointments was approved by the Finance (SIU) Department vide endorsement No. FSI824/06 dated 19.12.06 and FSI 205/2007 dated 14.06.2007 respectively. The said approval was communicated to the Treasury Officer, Sonitpur/Gohpur by the Deputy Secretary to the Government Assam, Finance (Budget Department) vide letter dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-I). 3. While the petitioners were working as such, their services were terminated vide order dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure-J). In the termination order, it was provided that the services of the petitioners were terminated with immediate effect as their appointment was held to be irregular and illegal in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –vs- Uma Devi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 4. Mr. N. Barah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that prior to the termination of the writ petitioners the mandatory process as may be required under law was not followed and thereby violating the Principle of Natural Justice. The petitioners were in fact not given any notice and afforded opportunities prior to their termination. In this connection, he relies upon the two decision of Apex Court Shri Dhar –vs- Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Others reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 157 as well as the case of Rajendra –vs- State of Maharastra and Others reported in (2008) 11 SCC 90 . Mr. N. Barah submits that the two decisions of the Apex Court held that it is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointments confers a vested right on the appointee to hold the post and that right cannot be taken away without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be rendered void. Therefore, Mr. The order of appointments confers a vested right on the appointee to hold the post and that right cannot be taken away without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be rendered void. Therefore, Mr. N. Barah submits that in the instant case as well since the respondent authorities prior to issuance of the order of termination did not afford any opportunity to the petitioners, the impugned order of termination dated 01.12.2008 cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside by this Court. 5. Mr. M.R. Adhikary, the learned Government Advocate by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that the selection and appointment of the petitioners was irregular and therefore when the same was brought to the notice of the competent authority, the Commissioner of North Assam Division was directed to enquire into the matter and who upon such enquiry submitted his report on 12.01.2008. From the enquiry report, it can be seen that various irregularities were committed in the selection process such as sponsoring names of the candidates after the last date of submissions of the applications were over, violation of rooster point and the Reservation Rule etc. He, therefore, submits that due to the finding of such irregularities in the enquiry, the appointment of the petitioners had to be terminated. In doing so, the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality. He thus submits that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and should be dismissed. 6. Mr. P. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the Finance Department submits that although the Finance Department has not been made a formal party in the writ proceeding but however as per the direction of this Court, the Finance Department filed an affidavit wherein, the Department has explained the norms and procedures and the modalities in making appointment to any post. He contends that the appointing authorities are not only required to advertise the vacancies but also are required to make appointments on the basis of recommendations of the duly constituted Selection Committees in addition to sponsoring of names by the Employment Exchange concerned. He submits that the procedure with regard to such selection and appointment has clearly been prescribed in the Assam Fiscal Responsibility Budget Management Act, 2005 (AFRBM Act, 2005). He submits that the procedure with regard to such selection and appointment has clearly been prescribed in the Assam Fiscal Responsibility Budget Management Act, 2005 (AFRBM Act, 2005). He therefore submits that any deviation from the norms and procedures prescribed in the AFRBM Act, 2005 would vitiate not only the appointment but the selection process itself. 7. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr. N. Barah submits that the enquiry that was conducted was clearly behind the back of the petitioners and they had knowledge of the same. Even otherwise, as can be seen from the enquiry report annexed by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition it can be seen that the so called irregularities have been mainly on the appointment of the Junior Assistant and so far as the Grade-IV posts are concerned, there are no details available except the finding that there was no advertisement made prior to such appointment. He submits the relevant provision for appointment of Grade-IV staff, is the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment Class-III and Class IV) Rules, 1997. He submits that a perusal of the said Rules nowhere provide that it is compulsory on the part of the appointing authority to advertise by publication of the vacancies in the newspapers. All that is required is that the vacancies and the details have to be displayed in the office Board of the appointing authority. He therefore submits that the appointment of the petitioners with the approval of the Finance (SIU) Department does not suffer from any irregularity and therefore, the writ petition should be allowed. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is seen that prior to the termination of the writ petitioners, there was an enquiry conducted wherein the findings that was arrived at was that there was an irregularity committed in appointing Grade-IV as well as Grade-III Staff under the Establishment of the Deputy Commissioner of Sonitpur. However, admittedly prior to the termination of the petitioners, the petitioners were not only given an opportunity to be heard but also they were unaware of the enquiry proceeding and the findings arrived at. 9. However, admittedly prior to the termination of the petitioners, the petitioners were not only given an opportunity to be heard but also they were unaware of the enquiry proceeding and the findings arrived at. 9. Considering, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shri Dhar (Supra) as well as Rajendra (Supra), the stand taken by the respondents is that irregularities were committed during the selection process and therefore, the termination order was sustainable cannot be accepted. Although the respondents claim that due process was not followed in appointing the petitioners, approval of the Finance (SIU) Department was otherwise obtained. Therefore, they could not have terminated the services of the petitioners without following due process themselves. I therefore find the order of termination dated on 12.01.2008 not to be sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 10. Mr. N. Barah submits that after issuance of the termination order, the petitioners were given protection by this Court by staying the impugned termination order and therefore, the petitioners’ are continuing service as on date. The interim order passed earlier is therefore made absolute. The respondent authorities would be however not precluded from proceeding against the writ petitioners which shall have to be strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law in this regard and with due observance of the principle of natural justice. 11. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.