Mr. I.K. Sharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised a number of contentions to show that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application is illegal. Learned counsel submitted that an enquiry with regard to the alleged illegality of the appointment should have been made in respect of each and every candidate and a general enquiry would not sub-serve the purpose. We do not agree with the contention inasmuch as by reason of the impugned order the appointments of all such persons, who were illegally appointed by the Civil Surgeon, Giridih, have been cancelled.

2. Mr. Sharan next submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner served for two years, he has acquired a right as his services could not have been terminated without taking recourse to section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that in any view the petitioner's services should not have been terminated in view of the fact that he has put in about two years of service.

4. When questioned, the learned counsel admitted that the petitioner was appointed, without any advertisement having been issued in this regard.

5. A citizen o