S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) AS all these cases relate to appointment of Technical Assistants in the Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department and similar orders of termination are under challenge, they were admitted for hearing, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) PETITIONERS in all the three writ petitions have challenged the order, contained in Letter No. 5530 dated 23rd October, 1998, whereby and whereunder. the respondent State of Bihar directed the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar. Patna to terminate the services of those Technical Assistants who were appointed illegally. Petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh of CWJC No. 3639 of 2000 (R) has further challenged the consequential order, contained in Letter No. 4821 dated 16th September, 2000, whereby and whereunder the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna, giving reference to the order contained in Letter No. 5530 dated 23rd October, 1998, directed the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Ranchi/Dumka, to terminate the services of those Technical Assistants who were appointed illegally. 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 Joint Directors), who was/were the competent authority, their services can not be terminated on the ground of illegal appointments. Petitioner Ramchandra Ravidas and others of CWJC No. 11456 of 1998 (P)have enclosed some of the copies of letters of appointment. One of them bears Order No. 290 dated 12th September, 1988, issued by the Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Range, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), whereby one Sri Raj Bansh Ram has been appointed as Technical Assistant, because of exigency, for a period of six months with clear stipulation that his appointment can be cancelled without prior intimation and he will have to appear before the Selection Committee at the time of regular appointment. From other letter containing Order No. 218 dated 27th August, 1999 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), issued by the Regional Director South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch ', it appears that ten persons, such as Sri Krishna Prasad Vidya Bhushan Prasad and eight others, many of whom are petitioners herein, were appointed as Technical Assistants on ad -hoc basis because of administrative exigency, with clear stipulation in their letter of appointment that they may continue till regular appointment is made on the recommendation of Subordinate Service Selection Board, Bihar, Patna. Rest of the petitioners of this writ petition while claimed to have been similarly appointed have not enclosed the copies of their letters of appointment. Petitioners Subodh Kumar Verma and others of CWJC No. 879 of 1999 (P) have enclosed a letter containing Order No. 103 dated 9th May, 1991 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), whereby 1st petitioner Mr. Subodh Kumar Verma and three others, who are not the petitioners in the present case, were appointed as Technical Assistants on ad - hoc basis for a period of six months with clear stipulation that their services can be terminated any time. Another letter bearing Order No. 82 dated 13th April, 1992 has been enclosed by the petitioners to show that 1st petitioner Mr. Subodh Kumar Verma and five others, who are not the writ petitioners in the present writ petition, were appointed on ad -hoc basis until regular appointment is made on the recommendation of the Subordinate Service Selection Board. This shows that Subodh Kumar Verma and others were appointed afresh on 13th April, 1992, but again on ad -hoc basis. Letters of appointment of rest two petitioners have not been enclosed with the writ petition. So far as petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh of CWJC No. 3639 of 2000 (R) is concerned from the letter containing Order No. 198 dated 6th July, 1990, attached by him as Annexure -3 to the writ petition, it appears that he was appointed by the Regional Joint Director South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi, as Technical Assistant on ad -hoc basis for a period of six months and such appointment was made with clear stipulation that it can be terminated any time. It was extended by Order No. IX dated 17th January, 1991 by the Regional Joint Director, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi until regular appointment is made through Subordinate Service, Selection Board, Bihar Patna or till final decision is taken by the Headquarters.
(3.) FROM the letters of appointment as enclosed and discussed, it will be evident that the petitioners were not appointed on regular basis. Their appointments were ad -hoc in nature till the regular appointment was to be made or until final decision as was to be taken by me Headquarters. In the impugned Letter No. 5530 dated 23rd October 1998 the respondents have shown the following grounds, while ordered to cancel the illegal appointments : (i) The Regional Officers had no power to appoint but the power was vested with the Director, Animal Husbandry, (ii) The appointments were made without any recommendation of the Subordinate Service Selection Board, (iii) In terms with the order dated 31st December, 1987 the promotion and appointment could have been made by the Director, Animal Husbandry and not by the Regional Officers; (iv) There was a ban on appointments since 1st August, 1985; (v) No advertisement was issued giving opportunity to other eligible candidates; (vi) Reservation Rules were not followed; (vii) Appointments were excess to the sanctioned strength; (viii) Appointments were made without following the procedures and guidelines; etc. ;