JUDGMENT : (Ramesh Sinha, J.) 1. Since WA No. 8/2023, 1/2023, 5/2023, 6/2023, 10/2023, 11/2023, 12/2023, 13/2023, 14/2023, 16/2023, 17/2023, 18/2023, 19/2023, 20/2023, 21/2023, 23/2023, 25/2023, 26/2023, 33/2023, 34/2023, 665/2022, 666/2022, 669/2022, 670/2022, and 671/2022 arising out of a common order dated 03.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6033/2023 and other connected cases, WA No. 9/2023 arising out of order dated 03.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6208/2021, WA No. 22/2023 arising out of order dated 03.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6363/2021 and WA No. 540/2022 arising out of order dated 04.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6297/2021, by the learned Single Judge involve common facts and question of law, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. WA No. 8 of 2023, arising out of WPS No. 6073/2021, is taken as the lead case for disposal of this batch of writ appeals. 3. The facts, in nutshell, is that writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed on the post of Training Officers by the Joint Director, Employment and Training vide order dated 10.01.2013 and after successful completion of two years of service, he was confirmed on the post of Training Officers. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners (respondents herein) had called in question the show cause notice dated 06.10.2021 issued by the Director, Technical Education & Employment (Appellant No. 2) by which it was held that since the appointment of the writ petitioners made on the post of Training Officer vide order dated 10.01.2013 was not in accordance with the provisions contained under Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon ke liye Aarakshan) Niyam, 1998 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1998'), therefore, by virtue of Section 14 of Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon ke liye Aarakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter 'Act of 1994'), their appointment was voidable for which their explanation was sought for by the impugned notice. 5. It was the case of the writ petitioners that the impugned show cause notice was issued to them all of a sudden after completion of 8 years of service and moreover, since they were confirmed on the post of Training Officers, their services cannot be dispensed with/terminated without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as such, the said show cause notice deserved to be quashed. 6. 6. Before the learned Single Judge, a detailed return was filed by the respondents/State stating inter alia that since at the time of appointment of the writ petitioners, the Rules of 1998 which provided for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, were not followed, therefore, their appointment was voidable by virtue of Section 14 of the Act of 1994 for which show cause notice dated 06.10.2021 were served to the writ petitioners seeking their explanation to which they were required to file reply and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions treating it to be premature. 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties at length and after considering the materials available on record, allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 03.03.2022 against which the State/appellants have filed the instant batch of writ appeals. 8. It was argued by Mr. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in law by allowing the writ petitions of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 , has deprecated interference by the Court at the stage of show cause notice. Further, the writ petitioners had not challenged the competence of the appellate authority in issuing the impugned show cause notice. He further relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Costal Container Transporters Association and Others, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 446 and Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 146 . Mr. Ahluwalia would further submit that the observations made by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 11 to 14 are erroneous as the show cause notice has been branded as an order passed with predetermined mind recording a clear cut finding to terminate the services of the writ petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in clear terms held that contents of the show cause notice need to explicitly indicate as to the purpose with which the show cause notice is being issued, as observed in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 . 9. On the other hand, Mr. Uttam Pandey and Mr. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Uttam Pandey and Mr. Faisal Akhtar, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) would support the impugned order and submit that no interference is called for. The learned Single Judge has committed no illegality while passing the impugned order. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 11. It is an admitted position that after lapse of about 8 years and after being confirmed on their respective posts, the writ petitioners were issued show cause notices holding their appointment as voidable. It was clearly mentioned in the notice as to why not their services be terminated. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants could not establish as to how the writ petitioners are at fault if their appointments were not made in accordance with the rule of reservation contained in the Rules of 1998. If there was any fault, it was the fault of the authorities who had conducted the entire recruitment process. Now, after lapse of more than 8 years, the writ petitioners, who have now been confirmed on their posts, cannot be thrown simiplicitor by issuing a show cause notice, which appears to be a mere formality as the same has been issued with a premeditated mind to terminate the service of the writ petitioners. 13. In Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2006) 12 SCC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction, however, it has to be considered from a different angle, when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. Similarly, in Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view. Similarly, in Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view. The learned Single Judge, at paragraphs 17 and 18, with reference to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and at paragraph 19, with reference to the meaning of words ‘dismissed’ and ‘removed’ has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, reported in AIR 1964 SC 600 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the right held by a Government employee to hold a post cannot be interfered lightly and in case any such proceeding is required to be undertaken, necessary care and caution has to be ensured by the Government, which in order to safeguard the interest of a Government employee, as is contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 14. While allowing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge had also granted liberty to the appellant No. 2 to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The writ petitioners are confirmed government servants on the post of Training Officers and they have also completed more than 8 years of their respective services. They are entitled to constitutional protection as guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and as such, their services cannot be terminated merely on the basis of a show cause notice which was impugned in the writ petitions. The order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the show cause notice dated 06.10.2021 is just and proper warranting no interference. 15. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.