- (1.)PETITIONERSIN this writ application, have challenged the letter no. 2132 dated 22.12.2004 and letter no. 2131 dated 20.12.2004 (Annexure -6) and (Annexure -6/A) respectively, by which they were dismissed from their services under the respondent authorities. Prayer has been made both for quashing the aforesaid impugned letters and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned letters of dismissal.
(2.)THE grounds on which the impugned letters have been challenged are,
i.that, the orders of dismissal have been passed without following the due procedure laid down under Rule 54 of the Service Regulations of Bihar Education Project Council.

ii.that, no notice was served upon the petitioners to enable them an opportunity to show -cause as to why their services should not be terminated. As such, the order of dismissal is against the principles of natural justice.

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that in response to the advertisement issued by the Bihar Education Project Council, which was created by the Government of Bihar as a Autonomous Body and registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, inviting applications from interested candidates for their selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Programme Officer and Assistant Resource Persons, both the petitioners had submitted their respective applications. Both of them had passed the written test and other tests and were declared successful. Thereafter, they were offered appointment initially for a period of one year on contract basis. The tenure was extended by way of renewal from time to time and the petitioners continued thereby to render their services continuously till the date of issuance of impugned letters of dismissal.

After reorganization of the State, the State of Jharkhand had also constituted the Jharkhand Education Project Council and had adopted all the Rules and guidelines, which were earlier maintained by the Bihar Education Project Council. The employees who were earlier employed under the Bihar Education Project Council and who were employed in the territory of Jharkhand, began discharging their duties under the Jharkhand Education Project Council. It is contended that though, the period of the petitioners services was extended from time to time, but to their surprise, they were served with the impugned letters, whereby their services were terminated.

(3.)THE grievance of the petitioners is that they were not served with any show -cause notice prior to issuance of the impugned letters of dismissal, nor were given any opportunity to explain as to why they should not be dismissed.