Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the advertisement on the notice board in 1981 inviting application for appointment on Class IIII and IV posts under the Filaria Control Programme the petitioners applied and they were appointed on temporary basis. Consequently vacancies were notified for regular appointment on 4.11.1981. A typed copy of the public advertisement is appended at Annexure 3. The petitioners came to be appointed after consideration of their candidature by a selection committee. Reliance for the purpose is placed on the communication dated 12.9.1983 referring to the appointments having been made by the Selection Committee. Nonetheless their services were terminated when they came to this Court in CWJC No. 7451 of 2003. On 25.8.2003 the order of termination was stayed by this Court. Subsequently the writ petition itself was placed before a Division Bench in pursuance of certain analogous matters on issue of wrong appointments pending before the Division Bench. The Division Bench disposed of a batch of analogous writ applications by referring the same to a three man committee for the purpose of enquiry with regard to the nature of appointment. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 7.3.2009/9.3.2009 has been passed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits quite simply that the committee did not hear the petitioner and secondly that the impugned order is non-speaking in nature and assigns no reason of the nature of the illegality in the appointment found by the enquiry committee.

4. Learned Counsel for the State urges from the record that it is only a communication that the committee had found their appointment to be illegal. The reason therefore can be gathered from the report of the committee.

5. The petitioners are adversely affected by the impugned order. They challenge the order on the ground that they are not being told the reasons why the order has been passed and they have not been heard in the matter. The respondents contend that their ex-parte enquiry is in their file. The imputation is that they are not required to disclose the reason.

6. An administrative order affecting a citizen adversely is required to be reasoned. The need for reasons becomes more important when an order is amenable to judicial review. It has been held that reasons are the link between the mind of the authority passing the order and the Court before which the order is assailed in judicial review. It ensures that the authority exercising the jurisdiction took into consideration all relevant materials and ignored the irrelevant materials. It satisfies the Court that irrelevant materials were not taken into consideration and that relevant materials were not ignored. In AIR 1990 SC 1984 on the duty to give reasons it has been held at Para 35 as follows:

35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and is application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our, opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or j