The appointment of teachers must be made in accordance with the procedure and manner laid down by the Government. Termination of services on the ground of illegality and irregularity in the initial appointments does not require a show cause notice or hearing. Persons whose appointments are terminated on the ground of illegality and irregularity are not entitled to arrears of salary for the period they claimed to have worked.

Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.-All these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common JUDGMENT :.

2. The main questions which have come up 'for consideration in these writ petitions are these :

(i) Whether the petitioners can claim to have been validly appointed?

(ii) If the first question is answered in the negative whether these writ applications can be allowed on the ground of alleged violation of the principles of natural justice? And

(iii) Whether in such an event they can still claim the arrear of salary for the period they claimed to have worked?

3. In ORDER :to answer these questions it may pe relevant to state some of the facts.

4. The petitioners claim to have been appointed under the ORDER :s passed by three District Superintendent of Education, namely, Shri Bhola. Ram, Shri Hari Narain Thakur and Shri Hari Narain Jha.

C. W. J. C. No. 119 of 1985.

5. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of 58 persons. The letters of appointment were issued by Shri Bhola Ram, District Superintendent of Education, Sahepganj. It is claimed that Government of Bihar had sanctioned 2300 posts of assistant teachers vide letter no. 50 dated 20,2.1981 to the District Superintendents of Education and had directed to make appointments on these posts. The Government had also sanctioned posts for appointment of handicapped teachers and had issued separate ORDER :s to the District Superintendents of Education. Advertisements were issued for appointments and the petitioners applied for the same. After interview a panel was prepared which was approved and the petitioners were appointed by Shri Bhola Ram the then District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj. They were accordingly, posted in various schools and joined their respective posts. The petitioners claim that they were appointed on substantive posts, Suddenly payment of their Salary was stopped. Except petitioner no. 24 Prasana Kumar Sah the other petitioners came to these' court for a direction to the authorities to make payment of their salary. Some of the writ applications were allowed and directions were issued by this Court for payment of salary, In the meanwhile the Special Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Education Department, ,respondent no.1 issued an ORDER :vide letter no. 1/2036 dated 13.9.1984 for the removal of 170 assistant teachers. Another letter no. 3103 dated 13.11.1984 was issued for removal of 335 assistant teachers who were also appointed by said Shri Bhola Ram the 'then District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj. Names of the petitioners were included in the lis dated 13.11.1984, marked Annexure-I. The District Superintendent of Education, Santhal parganas, Dumks and Sahebganj were direction to terminate the service of those in whose appointment letters temporary or purely temporary was written and to terminate the services of those in whose appointment letter these words were not written by giving them one month's salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly, ORDER :s for removal of the petitioners were issued on 12.12.1964 and were made effective from 12.1.1985. The petitioners have enclosed the removal letters in their supplementary petition and have marked them as Annexure-3 series. In the removal letters it bas been stated that as directed by the Government in letter No. 3103 dated 13.11.1984 their services were not required by the Department arid as such their services were terminated after giving them one month's notice with effect from 21.1.1985.

6. This writ petitioner has been filed on behalf of 30 persons who were appointed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka Shri Hari Narain Thakur. They also claim that in response to an advertisement they had applied and had been interviewed by a Selection Committee. A panel Was prepared on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee' and the petitioners were appointed under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka vide Annexure