S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN all these cases, as the petitioners have challenged the common orders, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged the orders, contained in Memo No. 2, dated 20th May, 2003 and Memo No. 251, dated 28th June, 2003. The first Memo was published in the daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" on 2nd June, 2003, whereby, giving reference to Letter No. 5530, dated 23rd October, 1988, and other letters, services of the petitioners and others have been terminated, on the ground of illegal appointments. Formal order has been issued by the Regional Director, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, vide Memo No. 251, dated 28th June, 2003. As the issue can be decided on short points, similar cases having already been disposed of by this Court and Supreme Court, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one, as mentioned hereinafter : All the petitioners claim to have been appointed as Technical Assistants after notice, published on the Notice Board, interview and selection through Selection Committee. According to them, they having been appointed after following the procedures by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka, who was the competent authority, their services cannot be terminated on the ground of illegal appointments. Petitioner Mukesh Kumar and Others of W.P. (S) No. 4562 of 2003 claim to have been appointed as Technical Assistants in December, 1990. From their letters of appointment, enclosed as Annexure 2 series to the writ application, it appears that they were appointed by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka, by different orders, issued on 29th December, 1990, 19th December, 1990 etc. Such appointments were made purely on temporary basis with clear stipulation that their services can be terminated at any time. Similarly petitioner Ram Prawesh Pas -wan and Another of W.P. (S) No. 5175 of 2003 claim to have been appointed by the same authority vide similar orders dated 20th December, 1990, as Technical Assistants on temporary basis with similar terms and conditions. Likewise petitioner Sachidanand Singh of W.P. (S) No. 3541 of 2005 claims to have been appointed by the same authority vide another order dated 9th December, 1990, on temporary basis as Technical Assistant, with clear stipulation that it can be terminated at any time.
(3.) THOUGH the petitioners have pleaded that they were appointed after following the procedures of appointment, there is nothing on the record to suggest that they were appointed on regular basis.;