Jayanandan Singh, J.

1. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged memo No. 03 dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure-8), containing an office order issued under the signature of District Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as `DEO?), Buxar, by which services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that his appointment was made in violation provisions of letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department of the Government. A further prayer has been made for directing respondents to reinstate petitioner in service on the post of Clerk and pay him all consequential benefits thereof.

2. Factual aspects of the case of the petitioner are that, pursuant to a notice, pasted on the Notice Board of the office of DEO, Bhojpur, petitioner submitted his application for appointment on the post of Clerk. He was having requisite qualification as he was a Graduate from Magadh University at that point of time. Hence, considering his eligibility for the post, after following due procedure, DEO, Bhojpur, issued appointment letter dated 3.8.1989 (Annexure-1), appointing him on the post of Clerk on ad hoc basis in K.P. High School, Dumri. Petitioner accordingly submitted his joining on 4.8.1989 in the School (Annexure-2), and started discharging his duties.

3. However, in the month of August, 1992, petitioner received a letter from the office of DEO, Bhojpur, dated 10.8.1992 (Annexure-3), asking him to explain as to why his services should not be terminated on account of his appointment having not been made in consonance with the procedure laid down for making appointments on Class III posts. This explanation was called for from the petitioner in view of memo No. 1390 dated 8.7.1992 issued from the office of the Director, Secondary Education. It is contended that petitioner submitted his reply within one week. Thereafter, petitioner did not hear anything in this regard from the respondents and he continued in service. After some time, under the orders of DEO, Buxar, as contained in memo dated 10.1.1996 (Annexure-4), petitioner was transferred and posted as Clerk in the High School, Sikraul. About five years thereafter, petitioner again received a letter from the office of the DEO, Buxar, dated 21.9.2001 (Annexure-5), by which he was again asked to explain the circumstances leading to his appointment, as the same was said to be not in consonance with the provisions of letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980, and also to explain whether the post was advertised in newspapers; whether petitioner fulfilled requisite qualifications at the time of his appointment; whether interview letter was issued to him by any competent authority; whether he appeared before any Interview Board and whether reservation roster was followed in making his appointment. He was asked to submit his explanation on the above points within a week. Accordingly petitioner submitted his reply to the same on 8.10.2001 (Annexure-6) giving his explanation point wise.

4. Petitioner received another communication under the signature of DEO, Buxar, dated 31.10.2001 (Annexure-7), by which he was asked to submit further explanation within a week as his earlier explanation had not been found satisfactory. Petitioner, this time, submitted his reply with a stand that he had nothing more to say. Finally, petitioner received impugned office order under the signature of DEO, Buxar, dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure-8), by which his services were terminated with effect from the date of issue of the order. The order referred to some assurance No. 46/108 of Legislative Council and the letter of the Director, Secondary Education dated 31.7.2001, and mentioned that his appointment was found illegal on account of non-compliance of procedure for appointment laid down in letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980.

5. By filing a supplementary affidavit, it has been asserted that, at the time of his termination, petitioner was being treated by the respondents as a regular