Ramnandan Prasad, J.

The substantial question which arises for desctermination in this case is:

Whether the termination of the services of the petitioners is bad for being violative of the principle of natural justice on the ground they were not given an opportunity to show cause against termination before the termination orders were issued?

2. The case of the petitioners is that in response to an advertisement for the posts of Assistant Teachers in different Elementary Schools in the erstwhile district of Santhal Parganas published in the newspaper on 7.4.1981 under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Santhal Parganas, these petitioners and others submitted their applications. They were eventually interviewed by the District Establishment Committee of the Santhal Parganas in between 17th and 19th September, 1981 and the Committee prepared a panel for appointment known as 'waiting List. Soon thereafter the erstwhile district of Santhal Parganas was split into four districts, namely, Dumka, Sahebganj, Godda and Deoghar After the creation of these and districts some candidates whose names figured in the said panel were appointed for the various Elementary Schools of the District of Dumka and a list of some of the candidates of that panel was forwarded to respondent no.5 Bhola Ram, who was then the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, In due course respondent no.5 issued appointment letters (Annexure 1 series) to the petitioners and posted them to different elementary schools within the district of Sahebganj. The petitioners joined their respective posts and were getting their salary till October, 1983, after which the payment was suddenly stopped for the reason not disclosed to them, There was an agitation against this stoppage and eventually the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar issued wireless message on 22-2-1984 directing the authorities to make payment of salaries to them, where upon a direction was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, to make payment, but still no payment was made to them. Being aggrieved, some of the teachers moved this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to pay the salary until they were legally terminated. In the meantime, a letter no. 2836 dated 13th September, 1984 (Annexure-4) was issued by the State (respondent no.1) for cancelling the appointment made by respondent no.5 excepting those teachers who were appointed by the State in the reserved quota of a handicapped and those appointed on compassionate grounds. In continuation of this letter the State Govt. issued another letter no.3103 dated 13-11-1984 (Annexure 4/1) directing the District Superintendent of Education to terminate the services of all the teacher whose names appeared in the list enclosed thereto. In pursuance of this direction the District Superintendent of Education issued letters dated 18-1-1985 (Annexure 2 series) to different teachers separately terminating their services after giving them One month's notice. It is these letters of termination of services of the petitioners that is under challenge in this writ application. It has been alleged by the petitioners that the termination of their services is illegal, inasmuch as no notice to show cause was issued to them nor any enquiry regarding legality or illegality of their appointments It has made in also been their presence that the was alleged that the termination of their services is discriminatory inasmuch as the teachers similarly appointed in the district of Dumka have been allowed to continue, whereas the services of the teachers appointed in the district of Sahebganj have been terminated, although both sets of teachers were appointed from the same panel prepared for the erstwhile district of Santhal parganas.

3. The State has filed a Counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that the appointments of the petitioners were purely temporary and their services could be terminated without any notice, but eve