JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed either on Contract, Fixed Pay or Muster Roll basis by the respondent authorities in various Grade-III and Grade-IV posts between the years 1983-2015. Most of the petitioners having served in their respective capacities for a considerable period of time, their services were regularized through 3 (three) separate Orders, i.e. Orders dated 21.08.2015, 16.09.2015 and 18.09.2015. However, soon after their regularization in view of certain complaints/representations submitted before the respondent authorities on the promotion/financial upgradation/ regularization being made in the recent past, the Chief Executive Member of Chakma Autonomous District Council (respondent No. 2) constituted a Review Committee vide Notification dated 13.10.2015 to scrutinize the promotion/financial upgradation/ regularization and fresh appointment which were made on 21.08.2015, 16.09.2015 and 18.09.2015. The constituted Review Committee comprised of the Executive Secretary of the Chakma Autonomous District Council as the Chairman and 4 (four) other Departmental officials as members. Pursuant to the constitution of the Review Committee, the Orders dated 21.08.2015, 16.09.2015 and 18.09.2015, by which the petitioners were regularized in service was revoked vide Order dated 26.10.2015. As many as 54 (fifty four) persons, who were regularized have been affected by the Order dated 26.10.2015 and out of which the petitioners, who are 42 (forty two) in numbers are before this Court and they have impugned the said order. 3. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015 is the outcome of the Meeting Minutes of the Review Committee dated 19.10.2015 annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents as Annexure-E. He submits that a perusal of the Meeting Minutes shows that two sittings were held by the Review Committee, i.e., on 14.10.2015 and 16.10.2015. The Review Committee, took into account the fact that the relevant provision and procedure for regularizing services of employees were not followed and that there were no records indicating that such procedure was adopted to arrive at its conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the issuance of the impugned Order, the respondents did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioners, to give them an opportunity to submit their representation or to be heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the issuance of the impugned Order, the respondents did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioners, to give them an opportunity to submit their representation or to be heard. The same having not been done, the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015 cannot be sustained and should be set aside. 4. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel further submits that in the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015, it is mentioned that the case of the employees, affected by the impugned Order will be considered through DPC as per established Rules. Admittedly, the respondent authorities have acted upon the same in respect of some of the petitioners as, few of the petitioners, namely petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 16, 17, 26 and 39 were considered by the DPC and their services were regularized vide 2 (two) separate Orders both dated 19.09.2018 which was issued by the respondent No. 2. He also submits that in view of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 04.02.2016, the petitioner No. 1 vide Order dated 30.05.2018, issued by the respondent No. 2 has been allowed to enjoy the regularization of her service as was given to her vide Order dated 18.09.2015. The learned counsel therefore submits that alternately, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the remaining petitioners in terms of the observation made in the impugned Order that their case will be considered by the DPC as per the established Rules. 5. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the past, appointments and regularizations have rampantly been done by the outgoing ruling Government in the Chakma Autonomous District Council and the same has resulted in huge deficits in the budget of the District Council. No procedure prescribed or guidelines framed have been followed in making such appointments, absorption and regularization and that the petitioners also fall in that category. Therefore, when it was discovered that their regularization was done by not following any established process their regularization had to be withdrawn. The petitioners therefore, having been regularized without due process cannot claim that they should have been issued a show cause notice prior to the cancellation of their regularization. Therefore, when it was discovered that their regularization was done by not following any established process their regularization had to be withdrawn. The petitioners therefore, having been regularized without due process cannot claim that they should have been issued a show cause notice prior to the cancellation of their regularization. In so far as the case of some of the petitioners, who have been since regularized after the filing of the writ petition is concerned, the learned counsel submits that as there was an observation in the impugned Order itself that the cases of the employees, whose regularization have been cancelled will be considered through DPC as per established Rules, their case were accordingly considered and resulted in their regularization. He submits that the same will however be subject to there being vacancy and budgetary provision. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. A perusal of the Order by which the petitioners have been regularized, does not indicate that there was any sort of screening or selection conducted by the authorities. The same is also the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit and which can be further seen in the Meeting Minutes dated 19.10.2015. Therefore, the projection made by the petitioners that a show cause was necessary before passing the impugned Order, in my considered view cannot be accepted. While taking such a view the observation made in the impugned Order itself that the cases of those persons affected by the Order would be considered through DPC as per established Rules cannot be ignored particularly when some of the petitioners have been considered as already noticed herein above. The regularization order produced by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel in respect of some of the writ petitioners is also perused. The same goes to show that their cases were considered by the DPC constituted for the purpose. Therefore, if such steps has been taken by the respondent authorities, there is no reason as to why the remaining employees covered by the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015 should not be considered for regularization as well. 7. The same goes to show that their cases were considered by the DPC constituted for the purpose. Therefore, if such steps has been taken by the respondent authorities, there is no reason as to why the remaining employees covered by the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015 should not be considered for regularization as well. 7. Thus, while declining to interfere with the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the remaining employees covered by the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015, whose services have not yet been regularized as early as possible, preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.