JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. Since common question of law and fact are involved in these writ applications they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Before embarking on a threadbare discussion of the cases at hand it would be necessary to spell out the factual narration of each of these writ applications. W.P.(S) No. 3297 of 2015 4. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) To quash/set aside the order dated 8th May 2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi (Patna Bench, Patna) in O.A. No. 150 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the original application (O.A.) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. (ii) To allow the Original Application (O.A.) No.150 of 2014, as was filed by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, by granting all the reliefs sought for therein. (iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner. 5. An advertisement was issued by the respondent no. 1 company in daily newspaper “The Statesman” in July, 2008 for filling up the vacancies for the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant (S-III Grade)/Jr. PR-cum-Staff Assistant (S-1 Grade) for various activities in connection with its corporate and social responsibilities. There were five vacancies which were to be filled up on the basis of the said advertisement and the last date of submission of the application form was 17.07.2008. It was mentioned in the advertisement that suitable persons who would be selected shall initially be on a casual basis against S-III/S-I Grade and depending on their attendance, performance and conduct etc., they may be regularized subsequently as per the rules. The petitioner being eligible for appointment to the said post applied for the same, whereupon, the respondent no. 6 vide letter No. 394 dated 31.07.2008 issued interview letter to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to report for the interview on 20.08.2008 at New Delhi and a direction was also issued to bring certain documents mentioned in the said letter itself. 6 vide letter No. 394 dated 31.07.2008 issued interview letter to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to report for the interview on 20.08.2008 at New Delhi and a direction was also issued to bring certain documents mentioned in the said letter itself. Pursuant to the interview held on 20.08.2008 a letter was issued bearing letter No. 1328 dated 30.09.2008 by the Junior Manager (Personal/ Recruitment) for appointment to the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant on casual basis against S-I Grade in Bokaro Steel Plant on payment of Rs. 256.32 per day. The petitioner was subjected to medical examination where he was found fit and subsequent thereto the petitioner had submitted his joining before the respondent-authority on 30.10.2008 to the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant against S-III Grade. It has been stated that the petitioner was initially working at the Delhi office of the company since 13.10.2008 and subsequently vide office order dated 06.02.2009 the petitioner was transferred to SAIL-SPU-Betiya where he gave his joining on 12.02.2009, The petitioner was once again transferred and posted at SPU, Project Office at Bokaro vide office order No. 417 dated 12.05.2009. On consideration of the service rendered by the petitioner and in terms of the advertisement, the respondent-authority had issued office order dated 14.11.2009, by which, the petitioner has been regularized/appointed on the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4170-3%-6095 (S- III Grade) and the petitioner submitted his joining on 20.11.2009. The respondent-company after completion of the probation period of the petitioner had issued an order of confirmation of the services of the petitioner vide letter no. 3239 dated 09.12.2010. Despite putting in satisfactory performance the respondent-authorities had issued letter no. 41 dated 04.01.2012 informing the petitioner about initiation of a departmental proceeding against him for committing various acts of misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the company. The petitioner on receiving the charge-sheet had submitted a statement of defence dated 04.01.2012 wherein the charges have been denied but vide letter no. 292 dated 02.02.2012 it was informed that the reply was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry committee is being constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. On conclusion of the enquiry and submission of enquiry report the respondent-authority had issued letter No. 233 dated 07.02.2014, in which, the petitioner was directed to submit representation to final notice. 292 dated 02.02.2012 it was informed that the reply was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry committee is being constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. On conclusion of the enquiry and submission of enquiry report the respondent-authority had issued letter No. 233 dated 07.02.2014, in which, the petitioner was directed to submit representation to final notice. The petitioner had accordingly submitted a representation but vide letter No. 302 dated 15/17.02.2014, Separation Order No. 37944/0 was issued by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2014. The order of dismissal and its confirmation in appeal were challenged by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 150 of 2014 but vide order dated 08.05.2015 the same was dismissed which has caused the petitioner to prefer the instant writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3319 of 2015 6. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) To quash/set aside the order dated 8th May 2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi (Patna Bench, Patna) in O.A. No. 051/00156/2014, whereby and whereunder, the original application (O.A.) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. (ii) To allow the Original Application (O.A.) No. 051/00156/2014, as was filed by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, by granting all the reliefs sought for therein. (iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner. 7. Briefly stated the facts reveal of an advertisement issued in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” and the details of the advertisement has already been referred to in W.P.(S) No. 3297 of 2015. The petitioner being eligible for appointment to the said post had applied for the same and the respondent no. 6 vide letter No. 394 dated 31.07.2008 issued interview letter to the petitioner who was directed to appear for interview on 20.08.2008 at New Delhi and a direction was also given to bring certain documents mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner being eligible for appointment to the said post had applied for the same and the respondent no. 6 vide letter No. 394 dated 31.07.2008 issued interview letter to the petitioner who was directed to appear for interview on 20.08.2008 at New Delhi and a direction was also given to bring certain documents mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner appeared in the interview and being successful he was issued an appointment letter bearing letter No. 1328 dated 30.09.2008 by the Junior Manager (Personal/Recruitment), by which, he was appointed to the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant on casual basis against S-I Grade in Bokaro Steel Plant on payment of Rs. 245.87 per day. The petitioner was medical examined and he was found fit consequent to which he had submitted his joining before the respondent- authority on 11.10.2008 to the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant against S-I Grade. It has been stated that the petitioner was working in the Delhi office continuously since 11.10.2008 and subsequently, vide office order dated 06.02.2009 he was transferred to SAIL-SPU-Betiya. The petitioner was once again transferred and posted at SPU, Project Office at Bokaro vide office order No. 417 dated 12.05.2009. Vide order dated 14.11.2009, the petitioner has been appointed/regularized to the post of PR-cum- Staff Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-3%-5600 (S-I Grade). The petitioner had consequently joined on the said post and in terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of 12 months. On completion of the probation period the services of the petitioner was confirmed to the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant vide letter No. 3239 dated 09.12.2010. It has been stated that the respondent-authority had issued a letter dated 04.01.2012 informing the petitioner about initiation of a departmental proceeding against him for committing various acts of misconduct under the certified standing orders of the company. After receiving the charge-sheet the petitioner had submitted his statement of defence wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner have been denied. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. After the enquiry report was submitted, a final notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 225 dated 06.02.2014, in which, the petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation in defence of his case within seven days. After the enquiry report was submitted, a final notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 225 dated 06.02.2014, in which, the petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation in defence of his case within seven days. The petitioner had submitted his defence but vide letter no. 305 dated 15/17.02.2014, Separation Order No. 37941/0 was issued, by which, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal but the appellate authority vide order dated 24.03.2014 dismissed the appeal. The order of dismissal as well as the appellate order were challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00156/2014 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2015 which has caused the petitioner to prefer the instant writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3324 of 2015 8. The order of dismissal as well as the appellate order were challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00156/2014 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2015 which has caused the petitioner to prefer the instant writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3324 of 2015 8. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: - (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in original application filed by the petitioner, being O.A. No. 051/00155/2014, whereby and whereunder, the original application filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of dismissal/separation from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.02.2014, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.03.2014 has been dismissed; (b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 15.03.2014 passed by the Executive Director (P&A), Steel Authority of India Limited, communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. 178 dated 18.03.2014, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of separation/dismissal from service has been rejected; (c) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including the separation order dated 13 th February, 2014, including the speaking order dated appended thereto, whereby and whereunder, the order has been passed for dismissal/separation of service of the petitioner; (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents’ authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Airport Liaison Airport Assistant (S-III Grade) with all consequential benefits; and (e) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Shorn of all necessary details, it appears that the respondent-SAIL had issued an advertisement in daily newspaper “The Statesman” in the month of March, 2007 for filling up the vacancies for the post of Airport Liaison Assistant (S-III Grade) and it was mentioned therein that the person shall be initially appointed on a temporary basis but were likely to be regularized after a minimum period of one year. The petitioner being eligible for the said post had applied and the respondents vide letter dated 18.05.2007 had directed the petitioner to report for interview on 31.05.2007. The petitioner had accordingly appeared and being successful in the interview he was issued an offer of appointment to the post of Airport Liaison Assistant on casual basis against S-III Grade in Bokaro Steel Plant vide letter dated 14.06.2007. The petitioner being found medically fit joined on the said post and in terms of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement he was regularized to the post of Airport Liaison Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4170-3%-6095/- (S-III Grade). The services of the petitioner was confirmed on successful completion of the probation period of 12 months. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 06.01.2012, by which departmental proceeding was initiated on the following charges: - (i) Fraud in connection with Company’s business; (ii) Indulging in corrupt practices; and (iii) The conduct bringing disrepute to the Company. 10. The petitioner had submitted a statement of defence on 12.01.2012 wherein the charges levelled against him have been denied. Since the reply submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. On submission of the enquiry report the petitioner was issued a final notice dated 05.02.2014 and after the reply was submitted by the petitioner vide letter No. 135 dated 13.02.2014 the petitioner was issued Separation Order No.37931/0, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred an appeal which also was dismissed by the appellate authority on 15.03.2014. The original order of dismissal and the appellate order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 051/00155/2014 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2015. W.P.(S) No. 3325 of 2015 11. The original order of dismissal and the appellate order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 051/00155/2014 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2015. W.P.(S) No. 3325 of 2015 11. The following prayer has been made in the instant writ application by the petitioner: (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in original application filed by the petitioner, being O.A. No. 051/00157/2014, whereby and whereunder, the original application filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of dismissal/separation from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.02.2014, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.03.2014, communicated to the petitioner vide Letter no. 557 dated 21.03.2014, has been dismissed; (b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Limited, communicated to the petitioner Vide Letter No. 557 dated 21.03.2014 by the Deputy General Manager, Personnel & Works-cum- Chairman of the Enquiry Committee, SAIL- Respondent no. 7, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of separation/dismissal from service dated 15th/17th February, 2014 has been rejected; (c) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 15 th /17 th February, 2014, including the speaking order dated 15 th February, 2014, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from service; (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents’ authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Junior PR-cum-Junior Staff Assistant (S-I Grade) with all consequential benefits; and (e) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The facts encompassing this writ application reveals that an advertisement was issued by the respondent no. 1 company in July, 2008 and the vacancies and other details have already been referred to in W.P.(S) No. 3297 of 2015. 12. The facts encompassing this writ application reveals that an advertisement was issued by the respondent no. 1 company in July, 2008 and the vacancies and other details have already been referred to in W.P.(S) No. 3297 of 2015. The petitioner had appeared pursuant to which he was called for an interview on 12.08.2008 at New Delhi and being successful was issued a letter dated 30.09.2008, by which, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Jr. PR-cum-Junior Staff Assistant on casual basis against S-1 Grade in Bokaro Steel Plant. The appointment of the petitioner was initially for a period of 89 days which could have been extended at the discretion of the Management and in the appointment letter, it was provided that the appointment of the petitioner on casual basis shall be governed as per the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. The petitioner was declared medically fit and thereafter he had joined on the said post on 11.10.2008. The petitioner was subsequently transferred and posted at S.P.U. Project Office at Bokaro. It has been stated that the respondent-SAIL after taking into consideration the performance of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2009 regularized his services to the post of Jr. PR-cum-Junior Staff Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-3%-5600/-. On successful completion of the probation period the petitioner was confirmed to the post of Jr. PR-cum-Junior Staff Assistant vide Letter no. 3239 dated 09.12.2010. The respondent-authorities vide letter dated 04.01.2012 initiated a disciplinary action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the company wherein certain misconducts were alleged and along with the said letter a statement of allegation against the petitioner was also separately enclosed. The petitioner on receiving the charge- sheet had submitted his defence denying the allegations levelled against him. The reply of the petitioner having been found to be unsatisfactory an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry committee submitted its report wherein charge no. 1 was not proved against the petitioner though the other charges were proved but the disciplinary authority vide notice dated 07.02.2014 disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge no. The enquiry committee submitted its report wherein charge no. 1 was not proved against the petitioner though the other charges were proved but the disciplinary authority vide notice dated 07.02.2014 disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge no. 1 and the petitioner had submitted his defence before the said authority but on 15.02.2014/17.02.2014 the petitioner was served with a copy of separation order dated 15.02.2014 wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of dismissal preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.03.2014. The order of dismissal and the order dismissing the appeal were assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00157/2014 which however was dismissed on 08.05.2015 and which is the order impugned to the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3380 of 2015 13 . The petitioner in this writ application has made the following prayer: - (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing the orders dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 051/00158/2014, whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal has disallowed the said original application of the petitioner (ii) Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for- (A) Quashing the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro (B) Quashing the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (M/M-Store) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant (iii) To issue the direction to the respondents’ authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of dismissal (iv) To issue any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In brief, the facts reveal that an advertisement was published by the respondent-authorities on 01.12.2007 in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” New Delhi Edition inviting application for appointment on casual basis likely to be made permanent against four (4) posts of Assistant (Coordination) and 6 posts of Attendant (Coordination). The petitioner had applied against the post of Attendant (Coordination) and after scrutiny the respondent authorities vide letter No. BSL/ND/Rect./07/800 dated 24/26.12.2007 issued an interview letter to the petitioner. The petitioner had applied against the post of Attendant (Coordination) and after scrutiny the respondent authorities vide letter No. BSL/ND/Rect./07/800 dated 24/26.12.2007 issued an interview letter to the petitioner. The petitioner had duly appeared in the interview along with relevant documents and being successful was issued an appointment letter vide letter no. PERS/R/2008-89 dated 12.01.2008. The petitioner was declared medically fit consequent upon which the petitioner joined on 22.01.2008 to the post of Attendant (Coordination) against S-I Grade. The services of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Attendant (Coordination) in the pay scale of 4000-3%- 5600/- (S-I Grade) and he was posted at S.P.U. Project. On completion of the period of probation the services of the petitioner was confirmed vide letter dated 04.09.2010. It has been stated that vide letter no. PERS/s/2012/45 dated 04.01.2012 the petitioner was issued a charge sheet to which the petitioner submitted his explanation but being dissatisfied with the same an enquiry committee was constituted and on its report having been submitted a final notice dated 05.02.2014 as contained in letter no. 154B was issued which was replied to by the petitioner denying the findings recorded in the enquiry committee but vide letter No. Pers/W/RCL/14-221 enclosing the copy of the separation order no. 37932/0 the petitioner was dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner but the same has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 27.03.2014. Both the orders came to be challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00158/2014 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015 which is the subject matter of the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3381 of 2015 15 . Both the orders came to be challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00158/2014 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015 which is the subject matter of the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3381 of 2015 15 . The petitioner in this writ application has made the following prayer: - (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing the orders dated 22.04.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 051/00153/2014, whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal has disallowed the said original application of the petitioner (ii) Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for- (A) Quashing the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the ED (Projects), BSL & Appellate-Authority, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro (B) Quashing the order dated 15/17.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (Project-C.O. & BPP, Safety) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant (iii) To issue the direction to the respondents’ authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of dismissal (iv) To issue any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The facts reveal that pursuant to an advertisement issued in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” New Delhi Edition on 01.12.2007 the petitioner had applied for the post of Attendant (Coordination) and after scrutiny the respondent authorities issued an interview letter to the petitioner who appeared in the same on 07.01.2008 with all the relevant documents. The petitioner was successful in the interview and consequently an appointment letter was issued to him vide letter no. PERS/R/2008-89 dated 12.01.2008. After being found medically fit the petitioner submitted his joining on 22.01.2008 to the post of Attendant (Coordination) against S-I Grade in Delhi Office, BSL for initial training. Taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner and the terms of the advertisement, the respondent authorities had issued order dated 10.03.2009, by which, the services of the petitioner have been regularized to the post of Attendant (Coordination) in the pay scale of 4000-3%-5600/- (S-I Grade) and he was posted at Project Division, SPU. The petitioner was again transferred and posted in SPU, Project Office at Bokaro vide office order No. 942 dated 29.10.2009. The petitioner was again transferred and posted in SPU, Project Office at Bokaro vide office order No. 942 dated 29.10.2009. On completion of the period of probation the services of the petitioner was confirmed. It has been stated that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet vide letter no. PERS/S/2012/49 dated 04.01.2012 alleging certain misconduct against the petitioner which was duly replied to by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled but being dissatisfied with the reply an inquiry was conducted by constituting an enquiry committee and after the enquiry report was submitted a final notice dated 06.02.2014 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the final notice but vide letter no. PERS/s/2014-306 enclosing a copy of the separation order no. 37940/0 the petitioner was dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner but the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.03.2014 and both the orders were challenged by the petitioner in O.A. No. 051/00153/2014 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi but the same was also dismissed on 22.04.2015. W.P.(S) No. 3383 of 2015 17 . The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing the orders dated 22.04.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 051/00147/2014, whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal has disallowed the said original application of the petitioner (ii) Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for- (A) Quashing the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro (B) Quashing the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Acting General Manager (Project)/T&C, M/M) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant and, (iii) To issue the direction to the respondents’ authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of dismissal (iv) To issue any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. 18. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.12.2007 published in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” for appointment on casual basis likely to be made permanent against four (4) posts of Assistant (Coordination) and six (6) posts of Attendant (Coordination) the petitioner had applied for the post of Attendant (Coordination) and after scrutiny the petitioner was issued an interview letter and on being successful in the interview the petitioner was issued an appointment letter vide letter No. PERS/R/2008-89 dated 12.01.2008 and after being declared medically fit the petitioner had submitted his joining before the respondent-authority on 22.01.2008 to the post of Attendant (Coordination) against S-I Grade. The petitioner was posted at Delhi Office, BSL for initial training and thereafter for further training the petitioner was sent to Betiah and Mahannar. Vide office order dated 07.02.2009, the services of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Attendant (Coordination) in the pay scale of 4000-3%-5600/- (S-I Grade) and he was posted at Project Division, SPU. On successful completion of the probation period the services of the petitioner was confirmed vide letter no. PERS/SERV/2011/664 dated 11.03.2011. It has been stated that vide letter PERS/S/2012/48 dated 04.01.2012 the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on the allegation of misconduct ingrained in the said charge-sheet. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and consequently an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges. On submission of enquiry report a final notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. PERS/S/2014-230 dated 07.02.2014 which was duly replied to by the petitioner but the same was rejected and separation order no. 37942/0 dated 15/17.02.2014 communicated vide letter no. PERS/s/2014-304 was issued to the petitioner by which he was dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against his order of dismissal but the same was rejected on 20.03.2014. The order of dismissal from service as well as the appellate order were assailed by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00147/2014 which also was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015 and the same is the order impugned to the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3385 of 2015 19 . The order of dismissal from service as well as the appellate order were assailed by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00147/2014 which also was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015 and the same is the order impugned to the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3385 of 2015 19 . The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs : - (i) A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 051/00146/2014, whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal has disallowed the said original application of the petitioner. (ii) Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for- (A) Quashing the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the (G.M) Project, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. (B) Quashing the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Acting General Manager (Project)/T&C, M/M) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant and, (iii) To issue the direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of dismissal. (iv) To issue any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Attendant (Coordination) in Bokaro Steel Limited pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.12.2007 published in daily newspaper “The Statesman” New Delhi Edition in which four (4) posts of Assistant (Coordination) and six (6) posts of Attendant (Coordination) figured. After scrutiny the petitioner was called for an interview and on being successful, he was issued an appointment letter vide letter No. PERS/R/2008-89 dated 12.01.2008. The petitioner was found medically fit and he submitted his joining before the respondent-authority on 23.01.2008 to the post of Attendant (Coordination) against S-I Grade. He was initially posted at Delhi Office, BSL for training and for further training he was sent to Betiah and Mahannar. The petitioner was regularized to the post of Attendant (Coordination) vide letter dated 07/16.02.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-3%- 5600/- (S-I Grade). On completion of the period of probation the services of the petitioner was confirmed vide letter dated 11.03.2011. A charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner vide letter no. The petitioner was regularized to the post of Attendant (Coordination) vide letter dated 07/16.02.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-3%- 5600/- (S-I Grade). On completion of the period of probation the services of the petitioner was confirmed vide letter dated 11.03.2011. A charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner vide letter no. PERS/s/2012/46 dated 04.01.2012 wherein allegation of misconduct were levelled which was denied by the petitioner by submitting a reply but the same was found to be unsatisfactory which resulted in an enquiry committee being constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty for the allegation nos. 1 and 3 and the final notice was issued to him vide letter no. PERS/S/2014-235 dated 07.02.2014 though the petitioner had submitted his reply but vide letter no. PERS/S/2014-327 enclosing separation order no. 37950/0 dated 18.02.2014 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which however was dismissed by the appellate authority on 19.03.2014 and both the orders were challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00146/2014 and the said original application was dismissed as well vide order dated 22.04.2015. W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2015 21 . The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs : - (i) A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi; Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 051/00148/2014, whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal has disallowed the said original application of the petitioner. (ii) Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for- (A) Quashing the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. (B) Quashing the order dated 15/17.02.2014 passed by the DGM (Project), ED (Project Office) SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant (iii) To issue the direction to the respondents’ authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of dismissal. (iv) To issue any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. (iv) To issue any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. An advertisement was published in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” New Delhi Edition on 01.12.2007 for appointment on casual basis likely to be made permanent against four (4) posts of Assistant (Coordination) and six (6) posts of Attendant (Coordination) consequent to which the petitioner had applied for the post of Attendant (Coordination) and after scrutiny the petitioner was issued an interview letter and being successful in the interview the petitioner was issued an appointment letter vide letter no. PERS/R/2008-89 dated 12.01.2008. The petitioner after being declared medically fit submitted his joining before the respondent-authority on 22.01.2008 to the post of Attendant (Coordination) against S-I Grade. The petitioner was posted at Delhi Office, BSL for initial training and was thereafter released for being given further training at Betiah and Mahannar. The services of the petitioner was regularized vide office order dated 07.02.2009 in the pay scale of 4000-3%-5600/- (S-I Grade) and was posted at Project Division, SPU. The services of the petitioner on completion of the probation period was confirmed vide letter no. PERS/SERV/2011/664 dated 11.03.2011. The respondent authorities vide letter no. PERS/S/2012-50 dated 04.01.2012 had issued charge-sheet to the petitioner highlighting several misconducts on his part and since the reply submitted by the petitioner denying all the charges were found to be unsatisfactory an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Vide letter no. PERS/S/2014-231 dated 07.02.2014 a final notice was issued to the petitioner as charge nos. 1 and 3 were found proved. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the final notice but the same was rejected and vide letter no. PERS/S/2014-296 enclosing the separation order no. 37939/0 dated 15/17.02.2014 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal which was rejected on 20.03.2014 and both the orders were assailed by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00148/2014 which however was dismissed on 22.04.2015 leading to institution of the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3520 of 2015 23 . The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal which was rejected on 20.03.2014 and both the orders were assailed by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00148/2014 which however was dismissed on 22.04.2015 leading to institution of the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3520 of 2015 23 . The petitioner in this writ application has sought the following prayer: - (i) For quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.04.2015 passed in O.A. No. 051/00154/2014 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (Patna Bench, Patna). (ii) Further quashing the order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Executive Director (P&A), Bokaro Steel Limited, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 572 dated 24.03.2014 by the respondent no. 8, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed against the order of separation/dismissal dated 15.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (L&A & CSR) Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City has been rejected. (iii) For quashing the order dated 15.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (L&A & CSR) Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, whereby and whereunder, the decision of the disciplinary authority has been communicated with respect to the dismissal of the petitioner from service of the Company, which is illegal. (iv) Upon quashing the aforesaid orders be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate in service with all consequential benefit. (v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to in law and equity. 24. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant (Coordination) in BSL pursuant to the advertisement published in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” New Delhi Edition in December, 2007 which was for filling up the vacancies for four (4) posts of Assistant (Coordination) and 6 posts of Attendant (Coordination). The petitioner was called for an interview and being successful a letter dated 12.01.2008 was issued by the Junior Manager (Personnel/ recruitment) by which the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant (Coordination) on casual basis in BSL. On being declared fit in the medical test the petitioner had submitted his joining before the respondent authority on 22.01.2008. The petitioner jointed at Delhi Office, BSL for initial training and for subsequent training he was assigned to BSL, Ranchi. On being declared fit in the medical test the petitioner had submitted his joining before the respondent authority on 22.01.2008. The petitioner jointed at Delhi Office, BSL for initial training and for subsequent training he was assigned to BSL, Ranchi. The services of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Assistant (Coordination) vide office order dated 07.02.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 4170-3%- 6095/- (S-3 Grade). The petitioner on successful completion of the probation period was confirmed in service vide letter dated 30.03.2011. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner for certain misconducts under the Certified Standing Orders of the company to which the petitioner had submitted a statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him. The reply of the petitioner having been found unsatisfactory an enquiry committee was constituted and on submission of the report the petitioner was issued a final notice vide letter no. 223 dated 06.02.2014 which was duly replied to by the petitioner but vide letter dated 15.02.2014 separation order no. 37937/0 was issued, by which, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner against the order of dismissal had preferred an appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority on 22.03.2014 and both the orders came to be challenged by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00154/2014 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015 which is the order impugned to the present writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3624 of 2015 25 . In this writ application, the petitioner has made the following prayer: - (i) For quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.04.2015 passed in O.A. No. 051/00149/2014 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (Patna Bench, Patna). (ii) Further quashing the order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Executive Director (P&A), Bokaro Steel Limited, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 572 dated 24.03.2014 by the respondent no. 8, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed against the order of separation/dismissal dated 15.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (L&A & CSR) Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, has been rejected. 572 dated 24.03.2014 by the respondent no. 8, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed against the order of separation/dismissal dated 15.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (L&A & CSR) Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, has been rejected. (iii) For quashing the order dated 15.02.2014 passed by the General Manager (L&A & CSR) Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, whereby and whereunder, the decision of the disciplinary authority has been communicated with respect to the dismissal of the petitioner from service of the Company, which is illegal. (iv) Upon quashing the aforesaid orders be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. (v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to in law and equity. 26. Briefly stated the facts reveal that an advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” in December, 2007 for filling up the vacancies for the posts of Assistant (Coordination) 04 in number and Attendant (Coordination) 06 in number on casual basis likely to be made permanent after a minimum period of one year in S-III Grade and S-I Grade respectively. The petitioner being eligible had applied for the post of Assistant (Coordination) pursuant to which he was issued an interview letter with a direction to report in New Delhi on 07.01.2008 along with the documents mentioned in the said communication. The petitioner had appeared in the interview after which letter dated 12.01.2008 was issued for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant (Coordination) on casual basis against S-III Grade in Bokaro Steel Plant on payment of Rs. 248.87 per day. After the petitioner was declared medically fit, he had submitted his joining before the respondent authority on 22.01.2008. The petitioner was initially posted at BSL Office, Delhi but subsequently he was released and assigned to BSL, Ranchi for further training. The petitioner was appointed/regularized to the post of Assistant (Coordination) in the pay scale of Rs. 4170-3%- 6095/- (S-3 Grade) vide office order dated 07.02.2009. On completion of the period of probation the services of the petitioner was confirmed. The respondent authority had issued letter dated 04.01.2012 intimating the petitioner about initiation of a departmental proceeding for committing various acts of misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the company. 4170-3%- 6095/- (S-3 Grade) vide office order dated 07.02.2009. On completion of the period of probation the services of the petitioner was confirmed. The respondent authority had issued letter dated 04.01.2012 intimating the petitioner about initiation of a departmental proceeding for committing various acts of misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the company. It has been stated that the petitioner had submitted a statement of defence to the charge-sheet but the same was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry committee was constituted which had submitted it’s report after which final notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 223 dated 06.02.2014. The petitioner had submitted a representation but vide letter dated 15.02.2014 separation order no. 37938/0 was issued, by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect. The petitioner had preferred an appeal but the same was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2014 and both the orders were challenged by the petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00149/2014 which however was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015 and which is the order impugned to the instant writ application. W.P.(S) No. 3754 of 2016 27 . W.P.(S) No. 3754 of 2016 27 . The following reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ application:- (a) For quashing the order dated 08.05.2015 passed in O.A. No. 051/00152/2014 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi (Patna Bench, Patna), whereby and whereunder the Original Application (O.A.) preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, without considering of the facts and circumstances of the case, which is not sustainable in the eye of law; And (b) For quashing the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 610 dated 26.03.2014 by respondent No. 7, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed against the order of separation/dismissal dated 15/17.2.2014 passed by the Acting General Manager (Project-M&M, Elect., Civil) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, has been rejected; And (c) For quashing the order dated 15/17.02.2014 passed by the Acting General Manager (Project-M&M, Elect., Civil) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, whereby and whereunder, the decision of the disciplinary authority has been communicated with respect to the dismissal of the petitioner from service of the Company, which is illegal; And (d) A direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits’ And/or (e) To grant such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioner. 28. The facts reveal that an advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” in July, 2008 for filling up the vacancies for the posts of PR-cum-Staff Assistant (S-III Grade)/Jr. PR-cum-Staff Assistant (S-1 Grade) for various activities in connection with its corporate and social responsibilities. There were five vacancies which were to be filled up on the basis of the said advertisement and the last date of submission of the application form was fixed on 17.07.2008. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that suitable person who will be selected shall be initially appointed on casual basis against S-III/S-I Grade and depending on their attendance, performance and conduct etc., they may be regularized subsequently as per rule. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that suitable person who will be selected shall be initially appointed on casual basis against S-III/S-I Grade and depending on their attendance, performance and conduct etc., they may be regularized subsequently as per rule. The petitioner had applied for the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant (S-1 Grade) and after the interview was held the petitioner was issued an appointment letter vide letter No. 1328 dated 30.09.2008 for appointment to the said post on casual basis in Bokaro Steel Plant on payment of Rs. 245.87 per day. After the petitioner was found medically fit he submitted his joining before the respondent authority on 31.10.2008 to the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant (S-1 Grade). The petitioner was initially posted at Delhi office and vide office order dated 06.02.2009 he was transferred to SAIL-SPU-Gaya and thereafter to SPU, Project Office at Bokaro vide office order No. 417 dated 12.05.2009. The petitioner was appointed/regularized on the post of PR-cum-Staff Assistant vide order dated 14.11.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-3%-5600 (S-I Grade). After the petitioner completed the probation period his services were confirmed vide letter no. 3239 dated 09.12.2010. The petitioner while in continuous service was issued letter dated 04.01.2012 informing him about initiation of a departmental proceeding for certain acts of misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the company. The petitioner had submitted a reply to the charge-sheet which was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry committee was constituted. After the report was submitted by the enquiry committed on 10.01.2014 the respondent-company issued a final notice to the petitioner vide letter No. 226 dated 06.02.2014, and the petitioner had duly replied to the said notice. The respondent authorities vide letter no. 294 dated 15/17.02.2014 issued Separation Order No. 37935/0, by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.03.2014. Both the orders were challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00152/2014 which however was dismissed on 08.05.2015 which has been challenged in the instant writ application. 29. Mr. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.03.2014. Both the orders were challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00152/2014 which however was dismissed on 08.05.2015 which has been challenged in the instant writ application. 29. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) 3297 of 2015 and W.P.(S) 3319 of 2015 has submitted that the petitioners had joined his services as PR-cum- Staff Assistant on 30.10.2008 and on 17.02.2014 he was dismissed from service after putting in more than five years of impeccable service in the respondent-company. It has been submitted that suspicion however high it may be cannot take the place of proof. In similar circumstances Arjun Hembrom is working while the petitioners have been dismissed from service. There is no allegation of committing any misconduct during the service period. Most or rather all the charges are connected to each other and to emphasize such point, Mr. Tandon has read the findings of the Inquiry Report and has consequently submitted that Charge No. 1 has not been proved and considering its proximity to Charge Nos. 2 & 3, those charges would automatically get decimated. While going through the impugned order submission has been advanced by Mr. Tandon that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the records in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners. 30. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3324 of 2015 and W.P.(S) No. 3325 of 2015 has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) 3297 of 2015 and W.P.(S) 3319 of 2015. Additionally, while referring to the Memo of Charges it has been submitted that none of the charges suggests that it was the petitioners who were the beneficiaries. It has also been submitted that the final notice is different from the findings of the Charge No. 1. The Enquiry Officer has travelled beyond the records while conducting the inquiry. 31. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3380 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 3381 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 3383 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 3385 of 2015 & W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2015 has also adopted the arguments of Mr. Manoj Tandon as well as Mr. Sumeet Gadodia. 31. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3380 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 3381 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 3383 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 3385 of 2015 & W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2015 has also adopted the arguments of Mr. Manoj Tandon as well as Mr. Sumeet Gadodia. He has furthered his argument by referring to the advertisement and thereafter submitting that the appointment was sought for on a casual basis with a chance to be made permanent. The entire act at best can be said to be an irregularity. The management has failed to issue any clarification with respect to the directions made in the issuance of the advertisement. 32. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the writ- petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3520 of 2015 and W.P.(S) No. 3624 of 2015 has submitted that there is no positive evidence to the effect that the petitioners had resorted to corrupt practices. 33. Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3754 of 2016 has also adopted the argument advanced by the other learned counsels. 34. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-SAIL has submitted that the advertisement does not even mention the name of SAIL and this advertisement was never posted in the website. It has been submitted that none of the counsels appearing for the respective parties have advanced argument that the principles of natural justice have been violated or that the inquiry was not held in accordance with law. Mr. Sinha has sought to distinguish illegal appointment with irregular appointment while referring to the case of “State of M.P. and Others versus Lalit Kumar Verma”, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 575. The facts and circumstances of all the writ applications clearly points to illegal appointments of all the petitioners which was initiated with a deception in the manner the advertisement was published. A person who is in employment for four years does not have a right to continue with the same as it is based on the premise of an illegal appointment and estoppel will apply. Reference in this context has been made to the case of “State of T.N. and Others versus A. Gurusamy”, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 542 . Reference has also been made to the case of “Superintendent of Post Offices and Others versus R. Valasina Babu” reported in (2007) 2 SCC 335 . 35. Reference in this context has been made to the case of “State of T.N. and Others versus A. Gurusamy”, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 542 . Reference has also been made to the case of “Superintendent of Post Offices and Others versus R. Valasina Babu” reported in (2007) 2 SCC 335 . 35. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel also appearing on behalf of the respondents-SAIL has submitted that there is a limited jurisdiction to interfere in an order passed by CAT. 36. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel in response has submitted that in all the five writ petitions he is representing the writ-petitioners, the disciplinary authority had differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. There is no material to suggest even circumstantial evidence to indicate that dubious methods were adopted to secure employment. 37. The difference between illegal appointment and irregular appointment has been succinctly explained in the case of “State of M.P. and Others versus Lalit Kumar Verma” (supra), wherein it has been held as follows: “ 12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between “irregular appointment” and “illegal appointment”? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to.” 38. The facts which are glaring and which was designed to favour a chosen few evolved with the issuance of advertisement in the daily newspaper “The Statesman” in a classified column. The advertisement itself was published in a surreptitious fashion to escape the notice of the aspirants as it was published in the Delhi edition of “The Statesman” and not in any newspaper having wide circulation to reach the masses. As per the advertisement the resume was to be submitted within ten days which was in contravention of the Recruitment Manual of Bokaro Steel Limited which provides for a window of four weeks in receipt of applications. As per the advertisement the resume was to be submitted within ten days which was in contravention of the Recruitment Manual of Bokaro Steel Limited which provides for a window of four weeks in receipt of applications. The other notable feature is the qualification which was necessary for making such application which was that of being a graduate. It is common knowledge that graduates are in abundance but surprisingly only limited aspirants had put in their application almost in commensuration to the number of vacancies. In fact, the entire process was designed to favour a few to the detriment of a large number of possibly more deserving candidates. The advertisement did not even have proper representation identifying the company which was inviting applications for the various posts. In the inquiry proceedings the Inquiry Officer has come to a finding that the petitioners had adopted fraudulent methods to secure employment and, therefore, no right accrues to the petitioners in their respective posts. 39. In “Superintendent of Post Offices and Others versus R. Valasina Babu”, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 335 , it has been held as follows:- “14. The question in regard to the effect of obtaining appointment by producing false certificate came up for consideration in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar wherein this Court opined that the authorities concerned would have jurisdiction to go into the said question and pass an appropriate order. The effect of cancellation of such caste certificate had also been noticed in the light of a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar wherein it was held that if the employee concerned had played fraud in obtaining an appointment, he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof, as the foundation of appointment collapses.” 40. From the scenario depicted above, it is abundantly clear that the appointments were made as a consequence of a large conspiracy to favour a few and deprive many in quest for a government job. From the scenario depicted above, it is abundantly clear that the appointments were made as a consequence of a large conspiracy to favour a few and deprive many in quest for a government job. When the edifice upon which the appointments were secured by the petitioners have major structural flaws the same is bound to crumble as in the present case as from the very inception of the process of appointment it can be gathered that the recruitment rules were not followed and the advertisements were deliberately issued in order to minimise its impact by preventing a large number of aspirants to participate in the process of selection. This would make the appointment of the petitioners illegal and not irregular. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned orders have copiously referred to the report of the Inquiry Officer and has given valid reasonings while dismissing the applications preferred by the petitioners. 41. We on the basis of what has been stated by us do not find any reason to differ with such finding and consequently, we dismiss all these writ applications. 42. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.