1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Both these writ applications since arise out of common cause of action, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

3. Initially the petitioners had challenged the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 6.9.2004 asking them not to work and consequently thereto their salary was withheld and subsequently they have been terminated vide order dated 21.4.2005 issued vide memo no. 488 as contained in Annexure 15 to C W.J.C. No. 12388 of 2004.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed by order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division on Class III post in the year 1991 and thereafter they continued to work in different offices in Magadh Division and all of a sudden, vide order dated 6.9.2004 they were directed not to work and their salary was withheld and subsequently they were terminated on the ground that their appointment was ab initio void. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on earlier occasion also salary of the petitioners were withheld, however, the same were released subsequently and the order impugned has been passed now without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of termination is wholly without jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the State with reference to a counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 12388 of 2004 submitted that notices were issued to the petitioners to explain their conduct but at no point of time any show cause was filed on their behalf nor they appeared in person to justify their appointments and the authorities, prima facie, finding their appointments illegal and ab initio void, terminated their services.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed some time in the year 1991 and they continued in services for more than ten years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were paid their salary, though at one point of time it was withheld which subsequently was released in their favour. Even assuming that the petitioners were not properly appointed by the respondent authorities, they were allowed to continue in services uninterruptedly for more than ten years and if they were satisfied that their appointments were made illegally, a proper course could have been resorted to after following the procedures of law. In the cases at hand, in my opinion, an appropriate enquiry was required to be conducted and evidence was required to be seen in the matter as to under what circumstances the petitioners were appointed.

7. From the order impugned itself, it appears that the petitioners never turned up before the authorities nor they had filed any explanation about their conduct. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that at no point of time any notice was served upon them. This fact however could not be denied by learned counsel for the State with reference to the original file which has been produced before me today. However, it is submitted that notices were issued under ordinary course. Be that as it. may, in the given facts and circumstances of the cases as noticed above, the order of termination as contained in Annexure Is is not sustainable in law as it has been passed without sanction of law.

8. In the result, both the writ applications are allowed. Order as contained in Annexure 15 which appears to be a common order in both the writ applications, is set aside. The authorities however, will be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The payment of salary etc. however, will abide by the ultimate decision taken by the authorities. It is also made clear that in case the authorities will be satisfied to proceed against the petitioners afresh, the process must be completed within a period of six months from today.

9. No costs.