JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.07.2010 issued by the respondent no.4 pertaining to cancellation of the order of regularization as has been contained in the order dated 13.02.2008, and also for quashing the order dated 01.10.2010 issued by the respondent no.6 relating to rejection of representations of the petitioners for reviewing the order dated 31.07.2010. 2. The facts, in brief, is that petitioners were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on 01.12.1989 in Class-IV post in Collectorate and Development Cadre. After their appointment they were appointed to District Rural Development Agency, Gumla. They were allowed to join on temporary basis by respondent no.5. In the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10781 of 1996 (Satish Kumar Sahay vs. State & Ors.), the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, vide letter dated 09.11.1999 has given guidelines to the Deputy Commissioner for regularization of employees on the basis of seniority. The petitioners filed their representations before respondent no.4 for their regularization of services. The respondent no.4 after considering the representation of the petitioners, regularized the services of the petitioner and they were deputed to District Rural Development Agency, Gumla as per the order dated 13.02.2008, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has further been averred that after issuance of Annexure-5, one writ application was filed and after filing of the said writ application respondent no.3 instructed the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to cancel the order of regularization of the petitioners, vide letter dated 05.05.2010. On receipt of the said order, the respondent no.4 cancelled the order dated 13.02.2008, vide Annexure-5, in terms of order dated 31.07.2010, vide Annexure-7 to the writ application which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 31.07.2010, petitioners submitted their representations and the petitioners further prayed for review of the cancellation order and the respondent no.6 vide impugned order dated 01.10.2010, in Annexure-9 to the writ application, rejected the representation of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, vide Annexures-7 and 9 to the writ application, left with no other alternative, the petitioners have been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, vide Annexures-7 and 9 to the writ application, left with no other alternative, the petitioners have been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondent no.4 in cancelling the order of regularization dated 13.02.2008 without giving any opportunity, amounts to non-application of mind and the same is not legal nor valid. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents could not have treated the petitioners as employees of the District Rural Development Agency on deputation after regular appointment in the Collectorate and Development Cadre by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents were bereft of powers to change service conditions after lapse of more than two decades. 4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4, dated 05.09.2017, the Annexure-10 where the relevant panel prepared by the District Establishment Committee, Gumla has been annexed, where the name of the petitioners are at serial nos.11, 37 and 59 respectively. It has further been submitted that after preparation of the panel by the District Establishment Committee, Gumla, petitioners were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, vide order dated 01.12.1989 on Class-IV posts i.e. on the post of Peon in Collectorate and Development cadre. Thereafter, the petitioners’ services was deputed to the District Rural Development Agency, Gumla. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that those who have been appointed vide Annexure-10 to the rejoinder have been regularized. Learned counsel further submits that one Sheela Kumari, who was appointed on compassionate ground after death of her husband by the District Establishment Committee, and she was placed in the service of District Rural Development Agency, Gumla on 03.05.1997 and when the services of said Sheela Kumari was not regularized, she filed writ application being W.P.(S) No.3967 of 2014 and the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2016. Thereafter the said Sheela Kumar filed L.P.A. No.441 of 2016 and the said L.P.A was allowed on 28.06.2017 with direction to the respondents-State to adjust the appellant in Regular Establishment or any Collectorate office within a period of six weeks, as per Annexure-11 to the rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter the said Sheela Kumar filed L.P.A. No.441 of 2016 and the said L.P.A was allowed on 28.06.2017 with direction to the respondents-State to adjust the appellant in Regular Establishment or any Collectorate office within a period of six weeks, as per Annexure-11 to the rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing with that of Sheela Kumari and the petitioners are entitled to the same benefit of regularization. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.4 to 7. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that respondent no.7 has sent a list of 4 persons from the panel prepared in the collectorate selected for the post of IVth Grade to appoint them in the vacant post and accordingly respondent no.5 has issued appointment letter 23.12.1989 and the petitioners have joined their services in the office of DRDA, Gumla without objection. In pursuance to order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in C.W.J.C Nos.10781 of 1998 the petitioner filed representation admitting them as a permanent employee of DRDA and requested to adjust them in other department as per the direction of the Hon’ble Patna High Court. The respondent no.4 posted the petitioners in other department vide letter dated 13.02.2008, vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. In view of the letter of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand addressed to the DC/DDC, Gumla informing that the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi has amended the guidelines in para 4.3 and 3.4 and directed to appoint the employee on contract basis by the DRDA and the employee of DRDA cannot be adjusted in Government service and accordingly Annexure-5 to the writ petition has been repealed. Thereafter petitioner filed representation for reviewing the order which has been cancelled by the impugned order vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. Counter affidavit dated 12.04.2017 has been filed by the respondent no.4, wherein it has been submitted that the representation of the petitioners has been rejected and the impugned order has been passed on the direction of the Ministry of Government of India. 6. Counter affidavit dated 12.04.2017 has been filed by the respondent no.4, wherein it has been submitted that the representation of the petitioners has been rejected and the impugned order has been passed on the direction of the Ministry of Government of India. Since the District Rural Development Agency is an agency and is registered under the Society Registration Act, and the appointment of the petitioners in the IVth Grade employee by the respondent no.5 was never by way of deputation and the Deputy Commissioner has never appointed the petitioners on permanent basis. Since the petitioners were appointed by the DRDA, Gumla from the panel prepared by respondent no.4 and they were appointed by respondent no.5 vide letter dated 23.12.1989, the petitioners have joined accordingly, which amounts to acceptance of terms and condition as stipulated in the letter of appointment. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment, services of the petitioners were temporary in nature and they will be guided by District Rural Development Agency Administration Scheme, as such, the order passed by respondent no.4 and 6 are just, proper and under the provisions of Government of India guidelines. 7. Learned counsel for the State has vociferously submitted that the judgment cited by the petitioners is clearly distinguishable and the petitioners’ case is not covered by the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the impugned order has been passed which have only rectified the order of regularization, vide Annexure-5, on the basis of direction of the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the record, this Court is inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) After the panel prepared by the District Establishment Committee, Gumla, where the names of the petitioners have found place at Serial no.11, 37 and 59 and their services were placed before the Rural Development Agency, Gumla in the year 1989. In the meantime, they have almost rendered 29 years of unblemished services and on the basis of services rendered by the petitioners, Annexure-5 has been issued for regularization/absorption in the services. Admittedly, the impugned order i.e Annexure-7 has been issued by the respondents without issuance of any notice or opportunity of being heard, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Admittedly, the impugned order i.e Annexure-7 has been issued by the respondents without issuance of any notice or opportunity of being heard, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Moreover, on perusal of the order dated 28.06.2017 passed in L.P.A. No.441 of 2016 (Sheela Kumari vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), it appears that the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing like that of the appellant in the said case. Therefore, in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice, having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order vide Annexures-7 and 9 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in Regular Establishment or in Collectorate office in the light of the aforesaid decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court. This decision shall be taken by the respondent authorities within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the copy of the order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.