JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. We have heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar-appellant supported by argument of Sri M.N. Parbat, learned senior counsel for the intervenor-Gayatri Kumari @ Gayatri Devi. For the respondent-petitioners, we have heard Sri Bindhyachal Singh, Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, Sri P.K. Shahi, Sri S.K. Dwivedi, Sri K.N. Singh, learned senior counsel, Sri S.B.K. Mangalam and Sri Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel. 2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Bihar assailing the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the 28 respondent-petitioners in all the appeals setting aside their termination orders on the post of Teachers of Government run Middle Schools in the district of Siwan. The respondent-petitioners were applicants for appointment as Teachers against an advertisement that was published on 09.08.1988 pursuant whereto selections were held between 1989-90 and appointments were made in the year 1991. The selections, therefore, relate to an almost three decade old matter, the dispute whereof came to be raised in the year 2001 when certain non-selected teachers staked their claim before this Court. 3. The selections, therefore, relate to an almost three decade old matter, the dispute whereof came to be raised in the year 2001 when certain non-selected teachers staked their claim before this Court. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that the selections and appointments were to be made in accordance with the State Basic Schools (Classification, Appointment, Promotion and Transfer of Assistant Teachers) Rules, 1975 which are extracted herein-under:- jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh lsok esa laoxhZdj.k] fu;qfDr] ÁksUufr ,oa LFkkukUrj.k fu;ekoyh] 1975A fcgkj ljdkj] f'k{kk foHkkx] vf/klwpuk la[;k ,lŒvksŒ 2749] fnukad 11-11-1975 & Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 309 ds ijarqd }kjk ÁnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT;iky funs'kd dk Á;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT;iky funs'kd ¼fo|ky;h ijh{kk½ ds v/khuLFk jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa dh lsok laoxZ] fu;qfDr] ÁksUufr] LFkkukUrj.k ,oa vU; lsok 'krksZ dks fu;fer djus ds fy, fuEukafdr fu;ekoyh cukrs gS %& Hkkx&1 lkekU; 1- laf{kIr uke] ÁkjaHk ,oa foLrkj & ¼1½ ;g fu;ekoyh jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh lsok ds laoxhZdj.k] fu;qfDr] ÁksUufr ,oa LFkkukUrj.k fu;ekoyh] 1975 dgyk,xhA ¼2½ ;g fu;ekoyh vf/klwpuk ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls ykxw gksxhA ¼3½ ;g fu;ekoyh funs'kd ¼fo|ky; f'k{kk½] fcgkj ds Á'kklfud fu;a=.k ds v/khu jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lHkh lgk;d f'k{kdksa ij ykxw gksxhA 2- ¼1½ jkT; ljdkj vko';drkuqlkj bu fu;eksa ls la'kks/ku] :ikUrj vkSj ifjorZu rFkk laoxZ dks iquZxfBr djus ds vf/kdkj dks jf{kr j[krh gSA ¼2½ jkT; esa jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh HkRrhZ dh jhfr vkSj mudh lsok lacaf/kr ekeyksa ij foHkkxk/;{k dk vkns'k vafre gksxkA ¼3½ ;g fu;ekoyh blds ÁkjaHk ls iwoZ ykxw fdlh Hkh le; ds vkns'k dk ogka rd voØe.k djsxh] tgka rd og blds }kjk Ádkf'kr fu;ekoyh ds Áko/kkuksa ds Áfrdwy gksA 3- ifjHkk"kk,a & tc rd dksbZ ckr] fo"k; ;k Álax ds fo"k; ds fo:} u gks] bl fu;ekoyh esa %& ¼d½ ^^jkT; ljdkj** ls rkRi;Z fcgkj ljdkjA ¼[k½ ^^o"kZ** ls rkRi;Z iapkax o"kZA ¼x½ ^^laoxZ** ls rkRi;Z bl fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr jkT; ds iquxZfBr ÁeaMyksa vkSj ftyksa ds jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa ds laoxZ ls gSA ¼?k½ ^^fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh** ls rkRi;Z ÁeaMyh; {ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd ls gSA ¼³½ ^^foHkkxk/;{k** ls rkRi;Z funs'kd ¼fo|ky;h f'k{kk½ ls gSA ¼p½ ^^l{ke inkf/kdkjh** ls rkRi;Z ,sls inkf/kdkjh ls gS ftUgsa jkT; ljdkj }kjk f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ,oa LFkkukUrj.k vkfn dh 'kfDr;ka Ánku dh x;h gSA ¼N½ ^^ÁeaMyh; laoxZ ds f'k{kd** ls rkRi;Z ,sls f'k{kd ls gS ftudh ÁFke fu;qfDr ml ÁeaMyh; laoxZ ls dh x;h Fkh vkSj vkxs Hkh mlesa gksxhA Hkkx&2 laoxZ xBu 4- ¼1½ jkT; ds jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa ds inksa dks fuEufyf[kr lkr laoxksZ esa iquZxfBr fd;k tkrk gS %& 1- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&iVuk ÁeaMy] iVukA 2- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&frjgqr ÁeaMy] eqtQjiqjA 3- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&Hkkxyiqj ÁeaMy] HkkxyiqjA 4- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&mrjh NksVk ukxiqj ÁeaMy] gtkjhckxA 5- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&nf{k.kh NksVk ukxiqj ÁeaMy] jkaphA 6- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&njHkaxk ÁeaMy] njHkaxkA 7- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&dks'kh ÁeaMy] lgjlkA ¼2½ mi;qZDr laoxksZ ds fu;a=d inkf/kdkjh v/kksfyf[kr gksaxs %& 1- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&iVuk ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] iVuk ÁeaMyA 2- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&frjgqr ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] frjgqr ÁeaMy] eqtQjiqjA 3- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&Hkkxyiqj ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] Hkkxyiqj ÁeaMy] HkkxyiqjA 4- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&mrjh NksVk ukxiqj ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] mrjh NksVk ukxiqj ÁeaMyA 5- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&nf{k.kh NksVk ukxiqj ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] nf{k.kh NksVk ukxiqj ÁeaMyA 6- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&njHkaxk ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] njHkaxk ÁeaMy] njHkaxkA 7- ÁeaMyh; laoxZ&dks'kh ÁeaMy&{ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd] dks'kh ÁeaMy] lgjlkA Hkkx&3 fu;qfDr ,oa ÁksUufr 5- ¼1½ jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa ds laoxZ esa lh/kh fu;qfDr dsoy eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr ds inksa ij gh gksxhA ¼2½ vkbZŒ,Œ Áf'kf{kr ds in eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa ls ojh;rk ,oa n{krk ds vk/kkj ij vkbZŒ,Œ Áf'kf{kr ,oa Åij dh ;ksX;rk ds f'k{kdksa esa ls ÁksUufr }kjk Hkjs tk;saxsA Áoj dksfV ds in Hkh osrueku fo'ks"k ds lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk ,oa n{krk ds vk/kkj ij ÁksUufr }kjk Hkjs tk;saxsA ¼3½ ÁR;sd laoxZ esa lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ,oa ÁksUufr fuEufyf[kr lnL;ksa dks feykdj xfBr dh x;h lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij dh tk;sxh %& ¼d½ {ks=h; f'k{kksifuns'kd & v/;{k ¼[k½ ÁeaMy ds rhu ojh;re ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh & lnL; ¼x½ ÁeaMy ds rhu ojh;re ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd & lnL; ¼4½ lHkh fu;qfDr;ka ,oa ÁksUufr;ka ÁeaMyh; lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij gksxhA ¼5½ LFkk;h vkSj vLFkk;h inksa ij fu;qfDr ÁeaMyh; lfefr }kjk rS;kj dh x;h lwph ds vk/kkj ij l{ke Ákf/kdkjh djsaxsA ÁeaMyh; lfefr le;≤ ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk fofgr vuqns'kksa vkSj ekud ds vuqlkj lwph rS;kj djsxhA ¼6½ ÁR;sd f'k{kd dh ijh{k;eku :i ls nks o"kksZ ds fy, fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA lh/kh fu;qfDr ds fy, rS;kj fd, x, mEehnokj dh lwph p;u lfefr }kjk ifj;kstuk ds vuqeksnu dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ ds fy, fof/kekU; gksxhA Hkkx&4 ojh;rk 6- ¼1½ gky esa HkRrhZ fd;s x;s ;ksX; eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk ;ksX;rk&Øe ls rS;kj dh x;h lwph ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼2½ fu;qfDr f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk muds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ;fn ,d gh frfFk dks dksbZ f'k{kd inHkkj xzg.k djsaxs rks mudh ojh;rk lwph mudh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij gksxhA vxj 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk Hkh ,d gks rks ojh;rk mudh mez ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr gksxhA ¼3½ ;fn ,d gh lkFk lh/kh HkRrhZ vkSj ÁksUufr }kjk vkbZŒ,Œ Áf'kf{kr O;fDr;ksa dh fu;qfDr gks rks ÁksUur O;fDr lh/kh HkRrhZ }kjk fu;qDr gksus okys O;fDr ls ojh; gksaxsA ¼4½ Áoj dksfV esa ojh;rk ml dksfV esa f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼5½ tks f'k{kd vius vuqjks/k ij nwljs laoxZ esa inLFkkfir gksuk pkgsaxs mudh ojh;rk ml laoxZ esa inHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA Hkkx&5 LFkkukUrj.k 7- ¼1½ f'k{kdksa dk LFkkukUrj.k vius laoxZ esa gh gksxkA ,d laoxZ ls nwljs laoxZ esa fdlh Hkh lgk;d f'k{kd dk lk/kkj.kr% LFkkukUrj.k ugha gksxkA ¼2½ ;fn dksbZ f'k{kd vius vuqjks/k ij nwljs laoxZ esa inLFkkfir gksuk pkgsaxs rks mUgsa mDr laoxZ esa LFkku fjDr jgus ij gh inLFkkfir fd;k tk ldsxk vkSj oSlh n'kk esa ojh;rk mls laoxZ esa inHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls gh fu/kkZfjr gksxhA laoxZ ifjorZu dk ;g vkns'k vafre vkSj vifjorZuh; gksxkA ¼3½ eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku esa f'k{kdksa dk LFkkukUrj.k lk/kkj.kr% vius x`g ftyk ;k ÁFke fu;qfDr ds ftys ds Hkhrj fd;k tk;sxk vkSj fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa vius x`g ftyk ;k ÁFke fu;qfDr ds ftys ds vfrfjDr nwljs ftys esa Hkh mudk inLFkkiu fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼4½ ,sls f'k{kd tks fu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ esa fd;s x;s LFkkukUrj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i nwljs laoxZ esa inLFkkfir gSa mudh lsok;sa oRrZeku laoxZ esa gLrkukUrfjr ekuh tk;sxh vkSj LFkku fjDr gksrs gh os vius ewy laoxZ esa LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;s tk;saxsA 4. Clause 5 of the said Rules provides for the preparation of a panel on the basis of merit according to which selections are to be made. There does not appear to be any further provision as to the manner in which the panel shall be displayed or made known to the candidates. The appointments have to be offered on the basis of the said panel to the selected candidates. 5. Two writ petitions were filed CWJC No. 8942 of 2001 (Sri Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and CWJC No. 10212 of 2001 (Kashinath Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein allegations had been made of irregularities and manipulation in the selections and appointments presently involved. A learned Single Judge on 24.08.2011 passed the following order for conducting a vigilance inquiry:- "In a nutshell, dispute is with regard to alleged large scale illegalities committed in the appointment of teachers of basic schools in the Division of Saran in 1991 onwards. The allegation of the petitioners is that out of 108 persons, who were appointed, names of many of them were not in the panel or within the cut-off marks and they were appointed by committing forgery and manipulation in the panel. The grievance of the petitioners is that persons from below the panel and below the cut-off marks were also appointed ignoring claims of petitioners. In the circumstances, this Court earlier directed the respondents to hold an enquiry and identify persons, who were illegally appointed, and take appropriate action in the matter. The State Government 2 has initiated some enquiry due to which appointment of interveners has come under cloud. Now the interveners claim that if a thorough enquiry is held in respect of persons, who were appointed earlier showing them above in the panel, it will be found that many of them were not eligible at all for appointment although surreptitiously they were included in the panel and were appointed. The broad outline of the case has been noticed only for the purpose that this Court feels that a thorough enquiry is required in the matter by a competent authority. In the circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate that the matter should be got enquired into by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department through a senior officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police. In the circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate that the matter should be got enquired into by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department through a senior officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police. As such, Additional Director General of Vigilance as well as Principal Secretary of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department are directed to take steps for a thorough enquiry in the matter. 3 This Court directs that enquiry should be held by the Department and a preliminary report should be submitted to this Court to be placed in these cases within four months from today. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has served two sets of entire brief upon learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, receipt of which is being filed in Court by learned counsel for the petitioners. Let it be kept on record. If any party is in possession of some relevant documents which may be useful for enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall accept it for consideration. Put up after four months." 6. It appears that a third writ petition of the same nature was filed vide CWJC No. 20639 of 2010 (Rajendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). 7. The said writ petitions came to be heard and disposed of on 25.07.2012 by the following judgment:- "Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) of Siwan Zone is present in Court and a final report along with its enclosures has been submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on his behalf which is kept on record. Now, after specific orders and indulgence granted by this Court, Vigilance Department has completed the investigation and submitted its final report along with its enclosures. It has recommended for institution of the first information report against persons guilty for illegal appointments. Along with recommendation for institution of F.I.R. a large number of documents have been annexed including a comparative chart of marks of the candidates appointed. Learned senior counsel for the Vigilance submits that among the appointed candidates, many have been found to be illegally appointed which has been pointed out by the Vigilance. Vigilance Department has also found that there was large scale connivance of the officials of the Department in the said appointments. Hence, prosecution has been recommended against them. Learned senior counsel for the Vigilance submits that among the appointed candidates, many have been found to be illegally appointed which has been pointed out by the Vigilance. Vigilance Department has also found that there was large scale connivance of the officials of the Department in the said appointments. Hence, prosecution has been recommended against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now Vigilance Department has found that from the panel of 150 candidates, many candidates, out of 115 appointed, have now been found by the Vigilance as illegally appointed. Hence the Department should revise the panel, strike off names of such candidates from panel and remove them from services. As a consequence of revision of the panel, now many candidates who ranked above or below the 150, like petitioners, may get higher position in the panel and within the cut-off point fixed for appointment. Hence if such candidates come under the consideration zone, they should be appointed and/or be allowed to continue. Learned Government Advocate No.1 submits that it is not clear from the report of the Vigilance Department as to whether a copy of the same has been sent to the Department of Primary Education or not. Besides, fixing criminal liability on the officials involved in large scale illegal appointments, departmental action is also required to be taken against them as well as against illegally appointed teachers. Hence, the Department will require a copy of the report along with its enclosures to decide future course of action in the matter. In the circumstances, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) of Siwan Zone is directed to send a copy of the final report with all its enclosures to Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, positively within a fortnight from today. On receipt of the report, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna shall take up the matter himself personally, examine the report and shall decide future course of action as the Department may be required to take in the matter particularly in respect of the officials of the Department as well as teachers who got employment on account of this illegal appointment. He will also revise the panel and check up as to how many other candidates ranking below, like the petitioners are shifted to higher position in the panel, so that on the basis of the record and other records of the Department, their entitlement for appointment or being retained may be considered. Since the matter is old one, Principal Secretary shall see to it that actions are taken in the matter as quickly as possible. The writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions." 8. According to the directions contained in the above-quoted order the Principal Secretary of the Department concerned was to take notice of the report of the vigilance bearing Report No. BS 13/2011, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5 in the writ petition and appears to have been dispatched in 2012 itself. 9. The Principal Secretary of the Department concerned constituted a Three Member Committee to look into the findings of the vigilance report and to proceed in accordance with law. The Three Member Committee submitted a report dated 21.02.2014 which ultimately came to it's own findings in tune with the vigilance report that the respondent-petitioners had succeeded in getting themselves selected from amongst the panel of the teachers on the strength of inflated marks that were depicted against their candidature for which different methods were adopted, thereby pushing down the meritorious candidates who were eliminated and in their place the respondent-petitioners who had lesser marks got themselves selected. 10. On the strength of the said reports that was accepted, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing show-cause notices and calling for a reply from the petitioners and thereafter an inquiry was held. Upon the submission of the Inquiry Report, a second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-petitioners, where after their services were terminated. 11. The appellant-State and its authorities came to the conclusion that on account of the inflation of marks candidates who were better in merit were eliminated and the respondent-petitioners with the aid of wrong marks being reflected against their names succeeded in getting themselves appointed. It was also found that had this manipulation not been carried out in the reflection of marks of the respondent-petitioners, they would have not been placed amongst the 150 candidates who were selected and appointed. 12. It was also found that had this manipulation not been carried out in the reflection of marks of the respondent-petitioners, they would have not been placed amongst the 150 candidates who were selected and appointed. 12. We may mention here that a panel of 903 candidates had been prepared, but appointments had to be made only against 150 available posts. Thus, the merit as against 150 posts had to be prepared and appointments were to be made accordingly. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar contends that the fact that incorrect marks were reflected is admitted to the respondent-petitioners and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the inquiring agency is correct. Since there was no other conclusion possible, the Disciplinary Authority rightly formed the opinion that the services of the respondent-petitioners deserve to be terminated. 14. The termination orders came to be challenged in the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals on the ground that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, copies of the documents including the Inquiry Report were not supplied to the respondent-petitioners so as to give them a fair opportunity to defend themselves. It was, therefore, held by the learned Single Judge that since the procedure meant for departmental proceedings including Rule 17 and 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules was not followed, hence the Inquiry was vitiated. It is also evident that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no reasons have been given as to why the objections raised by the respondent-petitioners about non-supply of documents was not tenable. The learned Single Judge found several procedural flaws in the inquiry and also held that there was no supporting evidence so as to attribute any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent-petitioners and consequently, all the termination orders were invalidated by observing as under:- "Summarizing the matter in contest, in my opinion the proceedings held in the case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions suffers from a number of procedural infirmities, which are dehors the provisions underlying 'the Disciplinary Rules' and against the principles of natural justice. Apart from the statutory violations the orders impugned in this batch of writ petitions is also not sustainable on grounds of absence of reasons accompanying termination as well as the failure on the part of the Regional Deputy Director of Education to take notice of the enquiry report as well as the defence set up by each of the petitioners. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has failed to apply his mind as to whether the irregularity complained of, is of such nature which would render the very appointment void from its inception or the irregularity so pointed out is of a condonable nature. In my opinion, all these writ petitions are fit to be allowed for the following reasons: (i) The Vigilance report which is the foundation for the exercise should have been individually examined and not applied blindly. (ii) The order of the Principal Secretary, Education Department, as contained in his letter dated 19.12.2014 addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of Education when it directs him to initiate action for termination of the services of the teachers by following the procedure provided under 'the Disciplinary Rules', leaves no discretion at the hands of the Regional Deputy Director of Education to examine the merits of the claim. The direction is in the teeth of the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Purtappur Sugar Comp. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & ors., since, (1970) AIR SC 1896. (iii) The order of termination impugned in the writ petitions is in violation of the procedure underlying Rules 17 and 18 of 'the Disciplinary Rules' which, inter alia, casts certain obligation on the disciplinary authority which are mandatorily required to be followed after receipt of an enquiry report and before imposing a major penalty. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has failed to follow the procedure provided under 'the Disciplinary Rules'. The orders passed are thus in utter disregard of the lawful procedure. (iv) The orders are unsustainable because even when in most of the cases the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioners, yet no disagreement note has been issued by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Regional Deputy Director of Education which invalidates the termination order. The orders passed are thus in utter disregard of the lawful procedure. (iv) The orders are unsustainable because even when in most of the cases the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioners, yet no disagreement note has been issued by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Regional Deputy Director of Education which invalidates the termination order. In few of the cases even the copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied as already indicated above and despite attention being drawn of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, he has not bothered to correct the mistake. (v) All these petitioners are working since 1991 when the selection was carried out and there was no challenge to their appointment by any of the contesting applicants except two namely Bhagwan Singh and Kashinath Singh and whose claim for appointment has not been upheld by this Court. The report of the vigilance in so far as these petitioners are concerned, prima facie does not reflect any invalidity in their appointment. (vi) There is no evidence on record to confront the stand of the petitioners that they had no role in preparation of the panel. (vii) The order of termination impugned in this batch of writ petitions neither discusses the defence set up by the respective petitioners, the explanation given by them nor discusses the evidence allegedly connecting these petitioners to the charge. In other words, the order of termination is without reasons, rather is passed in mechanical obedience of the directions of the Principal Secretary. (viii) It is rather unfortunate that even though the Supreme Court has been repeatedly reminding the executive authorities of their duty to assign reasons while adjudicating on inter-party rights but the wisdom does not reflect in the actions that follow. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & anor. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & ors., since, (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Supreme Court while discussing on the obligation of an authority discharging quasi judicial functions in paragraphs 14 to 46 has summarized the position in paragraph 47, which reads as follows: "47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision- maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous consideration. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasijudicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the since qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the since qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See: David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Condor, 32(1987)100 Harvard Law Review 731-37) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strashourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which required, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision". (o) In all common law jurisdiction judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." (ix) The report of the three-Member Committee dated 24.2.2014 constituted by the Director, Primary Education under the orders of this Court is on record at Annexure 9 to C.W.J.C.No. 11069/2016 and the three-Member Committee which includes the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra acknowledges the fact that the issue raised dates back more than two decades and neither the application of any applicant is available nor the educational certificates of the candidates is available, rather the Vigilance has enquired into the matter on the basis of certificates produced by the teachers themselves. The only irregularity which has been mentioned by the three-Member Committee is that the preparation of the merit list suffered from several irregularities. (x) Considering that these petitioners have continued on their respective post for more than 35 years with nothing substantive on record to render their appointment void, any irregularity pointed out by the vigilance bordering on inter party merit, required an examination by the authority concerned with a pragmatic approach and not in the mechanical and arbitrary manner as reflecting from the proceedings accompanying the present batch of cases. (xi) The orders are simply resting on the allegations as found in the vigilance report or in the charge memo issued without any supporting evidence. (xi) The orders are simply resting on the allegations as found in the vigilance report or in the charge memo issued without any supporting evidence. In other words, except for the allegation there is no supporting evidence to support the charge and thus, the conclusion is based on no evidence." 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar contends that when the primary fact relating to an erroneous description of marks has been established, then the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the primary case was one of inter se merit is not correct. This was a case where the respondent-petitioners had entered into service on the basis of a manipulated merit chart with the aid of which they achieved their ends. This, therefore, is a case of fraud and misrepresentation and not a case of mistake which could have been regularised or can be corrected even now. It is in this background that the State of Bihar contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petitions that too even without remanding the matter back for filling up the gaps in the inquiry proceedings. 16. Replying to the aforesaid submissions all the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners have virtually adopted the same line of arguments contending that the appellant-State had not followed the procedure prescribed in law and there was no material to support the conclusion so as to form any adverse opinion against the respondent-petitioners on the basis of material found. Thus, since there was no evidence to establish the involvement of the respondent-petitioners, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the termination orders. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent-petitioners that almost 30 years have passed by and some of the teachers are now about to complete their career, in such circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and they should be allowed to continue in the service. It is their contention that the proceedings were not in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.07.2012. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners have relied on Rule 17 (23)(ii) and Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rule, 2005 to contend that no reason for disagreement with the findings arrived at by the Vigilance Department and the Three Member Committee has been recorded. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners have relied on Rule 17 (23)(ii) and Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rule, 2005 to contend that no reason for disagreement with the findings arrived at by the Vigilance Department and the Three Member Committee has been recorded. To support the submission, reliance has been placed on Paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the judgment in the case of Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 440 . The non-supply of relevant documents and also the inquiry report has also been asserted for which reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Anr., (1993) 1 SCC 13 , Syed Rahimuddin vs. Director General, CSIR and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 575 Paragraph 3 and Govt. of A.P. And Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338 Paragraph 9. It has also been urged that the orders reflect non-application of mind which violates to Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005 and in support thereof the case of Chandradip Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2000) 3 PLJR 64 has been cited. 17. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that this dispute arose on account of a direction issued by the High Court on 24.08. 2011 and the judgment dated 25.07.2012. The said orders have become final and have not been challenged by anybody. Thus, any passage of time after the appointment of the respondent-petitioners cannot be a ground to construe that the exercise undertaken was belated or cannot be scrutinized due to a long lapse of time. Apart from this, two inquiries were held, one by the Vigilance Department and the other by the Three Member Inquiry Committee where the respondent-petitioners did submit their reply. 18. One thing is certain that the respondent-petitioners have also not been able to successfully deny the fact that their marks were wrongly depicted in the panel prepared by the office. The stand of the respondent-petitioners is that such mistake was either a clerical or a typographical or a mistake which was only attributable to the office of the employers and which nowhere reflects any manipulation or fraud on the part of the respondent-petitioners. 19. The stand of the respondent-petitioners is that such mistake was either a clerical or a typographical or a mistake which was only attributable to the office of the employers and which nowhere reflects any manipulation or fraud on the part of the respondent-petitioners. 19. The Inquiry Reports reflect the manipulation of marks only in the panel-list and there is no evidence of the respondent-petitioners having furnished fake mark-sheets or any wrong information about their actual marks but the fact remains that all the respondent-petitioners are beneficiaries of the said manipulated transaction. 20. It is here that we would like to comment upon the nature of the mistakes that have been reflected in the inquiry reports. A mistake is an error or a wrong estimate or fault in thought or inaction on account of any misunderstanding or misconception. What would amount to an inadvertent mistake is another aspect. A typographical mistake can be inadvertent and this what the respondent-petitioners assert but the manner in which the marks have been varied in the panel-list are in great contrast to the actual marks of the respondent-petitioners. The mistakes are therefore not inadvertent or typographical. They are calculative mistakes that have been inserted with a view to alter the position of merit and are not typing mistakes. The mistakes in the panel are evident as the respondent-petitioners themselves have taken a stand that they are not responsible for the mistakes as reflected in the panel-list. The respondent-petitioners have tried to shift the entire burden on the officials who may have prepared the panel-list and on whom the allegation is of having committed that mistake. The respondent-petitioners therefore have attempted to absolve themselves of any act of guilt on their part. 21. We find that the respondent-petitioners are the beneficiaries feigning ignorance about the depiction of such marks in the panel-list. They all contend that they have no knowledge as to how and when such mistakes occurred and they were not even brought to the notice of respondent-petitioners at any stage. It is therefore submitted on their behalf that if there was no knowledge to the respondent-petitioners about the said alleged mistakes then in that event no guilt can be attributed to them. 22. The question can be answered on the basis of the surrounding circumstances where the respondent-petitioners are beneficiaries. It is therefore submitted on their behalf that if there was no knowledge to the respondent-petitioners about the said alleged mistakes then in that event no guilt can be attributed to them. 22. The question can be answered on the basis of the surrounding circumstances where the respondent-petitioners are beneficiaries. The respondent-petitioners had knowledge about their selection and, therefore, an inference can be reasonably drawn and gathered from surrounding circumstances that the respondent-petitioners were at least having constructive knowledge of the selections on the basis of a panel that upon inquiry has been established to have been wrongly drawn up. To contend that they had no knowledge about the reflection of wrong marks would amount to infer a conduct against the ordinary course of things. However, inference on the basis of such evidence must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or mere speculation. An inference should not be drawn on the basis of strenuous exercise in order to prove something which otherwise may not exist but the objective facts of this case particularly the wrong reflection of marks is a strong circumstance which does not appear to be disputed by the respondent-petitioners. To the contrary, the respondent-petitioners are confident of even getting selected if the marks are correctly revised and placed in the panel. 23. The argument of the respondent-petitioners is that if the entire merit list is re-looked into as directed in the judgment dated 25.07.2012 it is quite possible that even with the correct marks the respondent-petitioners would succeed in getting selected. This exercise according to them has not been undertaken and which we find is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court or the rules of inquiry. The procedure appears to have been violated, inasmuch as, the respondent-petitioners were admittedly not given a complete copy of the Inquiry Report and the second show-cause notice only mentioned a gist of the charges that were found to be proved. In a couple of cases notices were not properly served. The appellants should have been provided the complete copy of the Inquiry Report relating to each of the candidates in order to enable them to set up their defence. The final authority that has proceeded to terminate the services of the respondent-petitioners ought to have been more specific about the involvement of the respondent-petitioners when the charge was one of alleged manipulation. The final authority that has proceeded to terminate the services of the respondent-petitioners ought to have been more specific about the involvement of the respondent-petitioners when the charge was one of alleged manipulation. The reason also, to establish the nexus of the respondent-petitioners with the Officers of the Department, has to be recorded on the basis of evidence by passing a speaking order. This was necessary in order to find out the involvement of the respondent-petitioners. Consequently, the procedure having been violated, the findings arrived at with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the merit position of the respondent-petitioners cannot be said to be wrong in its entirety unless it can be shown that all the respondent-petitioners would fall outside the limit of 150 posts against which employment had been sought. 24. Accordingly to our mind, once the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was a procedural violation, then in that event, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the same authority to examine the facts as alleged by the respondent-petitioners after providing the documents that were relevant namely the Inquiry Report and the letters of appointment etc. before proceeding to terminate the services of the respondent-petitioners. 25. In the light of above, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge that there were procedural violations, but in view of the fact that the respondent-petitioners were beneficiaries of a selection on account of incorrect depiction of marks, the authorities ought to have put the respondent-petitioners to notice about such facts including the Inquiry Report before having proceeded to terminate their services. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellants shall now afford a fresh opportunity to the respondent-petitioners to give a reply to all the allegations after supplying them a copy of the Inquiry Report by giving a fresh show cause notice and any other available relevant document and then pass appropriate orders after considering the reply of the respondent-petitioners in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 26. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Anjana Mishra, J. - I agree.