Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure-4) whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect.

2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners father was an Operation Assistant and at the relevant time, posted in the Subdivisional Hospital, Sheohar who died while in service on 22.1.2000. After his death, petitioner filed application in the prescribed proforma (Annexure-1) claiming appointment on compassionate ground and in Column No. 3 of serial No. 5, he stated that the wife of the public servant dying in harness, that is, the petitioners mother, is working in the Subdivisional Hospital. Claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and ultimately, by order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure-2), petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. It is common ground that the petitioners mother at the time of the death of her husband was an employee of the State Government and she still continues as such. It seems that the attention of respondent No. 5 drawn to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground notwithstanding that the petitioners mother was still working as an employee of the State Government, by order as contained in memo dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure-3), it ordered for termination of the service of the petitioner in accordance with law. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, by the impugned order of the same date, passed order terminating the service of the petitioner. It is the assertion of the petitioner that before terminating his service, no opportunity was given to the petitioner which in fact, has not been controverted by respondents in the counter affidavit.

3. Mr. Amit Prakash, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that respondents having not controverted the assertion made by the petitioner that his service has been terminated without giving any notice to him, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners service was terminated without giving any notice.

4. Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel No. III, however, contends that the appointment of the petitioner being illegal, there is no necessity of issuing notice to him. In answer thereto, Mr. Prakash contends that the impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences and as such, the order terminating his service cannot be passed without giving him opportunity. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Raghunath Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1996 (2) PLJR 20, and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph from the said judgment:

"22. It is obvious that termination of service of an employee will visit him with civil consequences. In such cases the authority terminating the services of the petitioners is not merely acting administratively but is acting definitely in a quasi-judicial capacity inasmuch as it decides a lis, namely, the right of the petitioners to be absorbed in the services which they have been discharging for years together."

5. It has further been contended that after a person is appointed on compassionate ground, he will have the same right as that of any other employee and as such, termination of service is not permissible without following the procedure prescribed under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ambastha and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1997 (2) PLJR 664, and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the judgment which reads as follows :

"9. In this case, as noted above, the petitioners were not found fit for promotion atleast partly on the ground that their initial appointment was on compassionate ground and they were therefore, not entitled to promotion in terms of the Government circula