JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels appearing in the respective writ petitions. 2. The facts which require to be noticed are that the recruitment of Secondary/Senior Secondary Teachers in the State of Bihar are to be made under the provisions of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 (Amended from time to time) and Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 (Amended from time to time). 3. On account of protracted litigation in this Court, which travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the recruitment remained stalled and, therefore, a resolution was taken up by the State Government on 25.01.2018 to take service of guest teachers as alternate arrangements against the vacant sanctioned posts in subjects of English, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Botany. 4. The respective District Education Officers were made as a competent authority to approve and make available the services of guest teachers. On 24th July, 2018, the Additional Chief Secretary, who was the Principal Secretary Education Department, issued directions in respect of engaging guest teachers to all the District Education Officer/District Programme Officer, directing them to complete the process of engaging of guest teachers on the basis of merit list prepared by them, latest by 05.08.2018. For Districts of Sitamarhi and Araria, the cut off date was fixed as 28th August, 2018. Instructions in this regard were also circulated. 5. It was revealed later on that the engagement of guest teachers had been done by the District Education Officer even after cut off date. No prior permission for conducting an exercise after cut off date from Additional Chief Secretary was obtained. Resultantly some of the petitioners were appointed on the basis of a second merit list, published on 16th August, 2018 and appointments were given to them on 16.08.2018 and they were directed to join by 21.08.2018. 6. By the impugned order dated 09.09.2019, directions were issued to terminate the persons, who were so appointed after the cut off date namely 05.08.2018 and consequent order was passed on 29th of November, 2019, which is under challenge before this Court. 7. 6. By the impugned order dated 09.09.2019, directions were issued to terminate the persons, who were so appointed after the cut off date namely 05.08.2018 and consequent order was passed on 29th of November, 2019, which is under challenge before this Court. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that rack discrimination has been done by the Department and only those, who were working as guest teachers in Districts of Bettiah, Aurangabad, Rohtas and Sasaram have been ear marked and their services were dispensed with, while in other Districts the guest teachers appointed after 5.08.2018 have been allowed to continue. 8. This Court at the preliminary hearing vide order dated 17.04.2020, noticed that the petitioners’ services have been terminated at the cost of students under going instructions in the Government run Educational Institutions. Further, it also noticed that the teachers had not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order and therefore, proceeded to stay the operation of the impugned order. 9. In one of the writ petition filed, almost of similar nature, no interim order could be passed and, therefore, all the writ petitions have come before this Court along with the said writ petition for hearing. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Department submits that as the cut off date had been fixed by the Principal Secretary Education to be 05.08.2018, no departure thereto could be done by the respective District Education Officer and a subsequent merit list could not have been published nor any appointments could have been given thereafter. The action, therefore, of terminating services of such teachers cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. 11. In case of C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 2020 (Ishwardayal Prasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), the learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioners were appointed prior to 05.08.2018 and therefore, there was no occasion to terminate their services. They have wrongly been included in the said list. Reply has been filed in the said case and the said fact has not been denied. 12. Learned counsels appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 23 of 2020 (Koushal Kishore Thakur & Ors. Vrs. They have wrongly been included in the said list. Reply has been filed in the said case and the said fact has not been denied. 12. Learned counsels appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 23 of 2020 (Koushal Kishore Thakur & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar), submits that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2018 and have continued for more than one year and after one year of appointment and continuity in service, as ad-hoc guest teachers, their services could not have been dispensed with by a blanket order without giving them any opportunity of hearing. 13. Learned counsel in C.W.J.C. No. 18156 of 2019 (Arun Kumar Tiwary & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), submits that there was a panel prepared and while the first merit list was published prior to 05.08.2018, the second merit list was also from the same panel, which was existing prior to 05.08.2018 and, therefore, it cannot be said that a separate selection process was conducted after 05.08.2018. Further, it is submitted that the appointments are on ad-hoc basis and their services were already utilized for a period of one year and ought to have been continued till regularly selected persons are available. 14. Learned counsel appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 21774 of 2019 (Madhuri Kumari & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), submits that the petitioners have been subjected to discrimination apart from adopting the arguments taken at bar, she submits that a pick and choose method cannot be adopted for terminating teachers, who are similarly situated. In almost all the cases, the situation is alike and it is the second merit list prepared from the panel, which was operated upon. Merely because, prior sanction was not taken from the Principal Secretary, services could not have been dispensed with as admittedly their services were required and the purpose of appointment of guest teachers remain. 15. I have considered the submissions, so far as C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 2020 (Ishwardayal Prasad & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) is concerned, since the petitioners were appointed prior to 05.08.2018. In view of the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, which is on record, in case of C.W.J.C. No. 23 of 2020 (Koushal Kishore Thakur & Ors. Vs. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) is concerned, since the petitioners were appointed prior to 05.08.2018. In view of the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, which is on record, in case of C.W.J.C. No. 23 of 2020 (Koushal Kishore Thakur & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), the petitioners services could not have been dispensed with as the appointments were treated as regular prior to 05.08.2018 and the sanction was given by the Principal Secretary. 16. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The order of termination dated 28.10.2019 is quashed and set aside. 17. The Petitioners would be entitled to all the consequential benefits and continuing of service. As regards, C.W.J.C. No. 23 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 18156 of 2019, C.W.J.C. No. 20384 of 2019, C.W.J.C. No. 21774 of 2019, C.W.J.C. No. 22584 of 2019, C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 16483 of 2021 are concerned, this Court finds that all the petitioners, who have been appointed prior to 05.08.2018, will be treated as having been appointed on regular basis and their services will be continued. Termination order passed in respect of them shall be treated as quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits as passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 2020 (Ishwardayal Prasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (supra). 18. As regards, the teachers, who have been appointed after 05.08.2018 are concerned, it is noticed that in few of the Districts the teachers have been allowed to continue, while in some other Districts their services were dispensed with after a period of having works for more than one year. 19. Their services were required and the very appointment was with the purpose to provide education to the students in a situation where regular appointments could not be made. The power of appointment was given to the District Education Officer. The only objection which has come forth from the Department is of violation of the order passed by the Principal Secretary in not taking prior sanction from him by the District Education Officer. It is not a case where their appointments have been made by a back door entry or without following due process of law. At best the appointment can be said to be irregular and post facto sanction could have been always taken from the Principal Secretary for continuing them. It is not a case where their appointments have been made by a back door entry or without following due process of law. At best the appointment can be said to be irregular and post facto sanction could have been always taken from the Principal Secretary for continuing them. No action has been taken against the District Education Officer. 20. This Court while passing the interim order in their favour has also observed that principles of natural justice were required to be followed which have admittedly not been followed. The principle of Audi alterem partem has been violated and any action taken contrary to the same taking away a vested right of an employee affecting his life would have to be treated as void ab initio. Hence, the impugned action is un-sustainable in law. 21. In view thereof, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service. As interim order has already been passed in their favour, they shall be allowed to continue till regularly selected candidates are made available against the said post. 22. The interim order passed by this Court is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. All the writ petitions are allowed. Cost made easy.