Navin Sinha, J.

1. This writ application is yet another in the series of litigations before this Court with regard to appointment and termination of a Class-IV employee after twenty three long years of service. The appointment was made by officers holding high ranks, vested with powers of appointment. The appointment is now questioned on grounds of illegal exercise of powers by such superior officers.

2. The petitioner was appointed by the Rehabilitation Officer in the Land Acquisition Department (under the Department of Water Resources) at Supaul as a peon on ad hoc basis for three months on 9.12.1980, simultaneously seeking approval of the Director, Land Acquisition for such appointment. On 20.10.1981, the Director extended the appointment from 9.3.1981 to 31.12.1981. On 25.9.1982 petitioners service book was opened. On 16.1.1982 the Director, Land Acquisition extended the appointment till 31.3.1982. On 5.2.1982, the Rehabilitation Officer wrote to the Director, Land Acquisition that the petitioner was qualified to hold the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and sought approval for such temporary appointment from 1.2.1982 to 3.5.1982. The Director approved this appointment for the same period on 6.8.1982. This was followed by further extensions on 19.5.1982 to 11.10.1982 and ultimately it was extended till further orders by the Director on 19.4.1983. On 20.12.1988, the District Establishment Committee promoted the petitioner to Senior Accounts Clerk.

3. On 17.1.2003, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice questioning the legality of his very initial appointment on 9.12.1980 as a peon and subsequently as a Junior Accounts Clerk. He replied. A second show cause notice followed on 12.7.2003, duly replied on 30.7.2003. The order of termination followed on 24.9.2003.

4. This Court on 5.1.2004, stayed operation of the order dated 24.9.2003.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counter affidavit explicitly states that large appointments were made after 1985 which were under scrutiny as illegal/irregular appointment. Relying upon a Government notification dated 11.6.1986, it is submitted that the Government had resolved to take action for termination of such illegal/irregular appointment made after 1.8.1985 with simultaneous action against those officers who made the appointment. The petitioner being an appointee of 1980 was clearly beyond the purview of such scrutiny and termination, even as per the case of the respondents. It was next urged that by an order dated 18.2.1978, the powers of the Director, Land Acquisition were given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for making ad hoc appointment as recited in office order No.625 dated 21.3.2001 of the Water Resources Department. This power was withdrawn on 2.12.1983, as stated in Paragraph-5 of the aforesaid order. The appointment of the petitioner on 9.12.1980 was therefore made during the validity of the power to appoint. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 5692 of 1998 and 5964 of 1998 (Birendra Prasad Singh/Pawan Kumar Lal Karn & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.) from Paragraph-5 of the same, it was submitted that this Court with reference to the powers of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Rehabilitation Officer held as follows:

"This clearly shows that the cadre of ministerial employees including the Class-IV employees of Special Land Acquisition Officer and Rehabilitation Officer was common, the appointing authority being Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Rehabilitation Officer."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a Division Bench order of this Court in L.P.A. No. 270 of 2000 upholding a similar appointment by the Rehabilitation Officer on temporary basis subject to approval of the Director, Land Acquisition which in like manner was extended by the Director from time to time when the Division Bench held that there was "tacit