JUDGMENT :

(Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. Since WA No. 8/2023, 1/2023, 5/2023, 6/2023, 10/2023, 11/2023, 12/2023, 13/2023, 14/2023, 16/2023, 17/2023, 18/2023, 19/2023, 20/2023, 21/2023, 23/2023, 25/2023, 26/2023, 33/2023, 34/2023, 665/2022, 666/2022, 669/2022, 670/2022, and 671/2022 arising out of a common order dated 03.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6033/2023 and other connected cases, WA No. 9/2023 arising out of order dated 03.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6208/2021, WA No. 22/2023 arising out of order dated 03.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6363/2021 and WA No. 540/2022 arising out of order dated 04.03.2022 passed in WPS No. 6297/2021, by the learned Single Judge involve common facts and question of law, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. WA No. 8 of 2023, arising out of WPS No. 6073/2021, is taken as the lead case for disposal of this batch of writ appeals.

3. The facts, in nutshell, is that writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed on the post of Training Officers by the Joint Director, Employment and Training vide order dated 10.01.2013 and after successful completion of two years of service, he was confirmed on the post of Training Officers.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners (respondents herein) had called in question the show cause notice dated 06.10.2021 issued by the Director, Technical Education & Employment (Appellant No. 2) by which it was held that since the appointment of the writ petitioners made on the post of Training Officer vide order dated 10.01.2013 was not in accordance with the provisions contained under Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon ke liye Aarakshan) Niyam, 1998 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1998'), therefore, by virtue of Section 14 of Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon ke liye Aarakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter 'Act of 1994'), their appointment was voidable for which their explanation was sought for by the impugned notice.

5. It was the case of the writ petitioners that the impugned show cause notice was issued to them all of a sudden after completion of 8 years of service and moreover, since they were confirmed on the post of Training Officers, their services cannot be dispensed with/terminated without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as such, the said show cause notice deserved to be quashed.

6. Before the learned Single Judge, a detailed return was filed by the respondents/State stating inter alia that since at the time of appointment of the writ petitioners, the Rules of 1998 which provided for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, were not followed, therefore, their appointment was voidable by virtue of Section 14 of the Act of 1994 for which show cause notice dated 06.10.2021 were served to the writ petitioners seeking their explanation to which they were required to file reply and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions treating it to be premature.

7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties at length and after considering the materials available on record, allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 03.03.2022 against which the State/appellants have filed the instant batch of writ appeals.

8. It was argued by Mr. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in law by allowing the writ petitions of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, has deprecated interference by the Court at the stage of show cause notice. Further, the writ petitioners had not challenged the competence of the appellate authority in issuing the impugned show cause notice. He further relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. C