Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have a common grievance and the common questions of law, based on identical facts, have been raised and as such the same are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after about 14-15 years long services, they have been issued a letter in the form of show cause and that too after a pre-decision to terminate their services on the ground that there is no proof that their initial appointments were made after following the prescribed procedure and the reservation policy. It has been contended that irregularity can not be cured and regularized only on the ground of long passage of time and that the impugned orders are passed in the light of the judgment passed in LPA No. 675/2000. According to the petitioners, the order passed in LPA No. 675/2000 by the Patna High Court has got no application in their cases, inasmuch as, in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) filed before the Supreme Court, an interim order for maintaining the status quo as on 13.10.2003, has already been passed. Since there is slight difference in the facts of each case, before coming to the common questions of facts and law, it is necessary to look into the brief facts of each case separately.

W.P.(S) No. 1192/2004

Suresh Prasad v. The State of

Jharkhand and Ors.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 320, dated 3.2.2004 (Annexure-15) whereby the petitioner has been asked to reply as to why the decision should not be taken by the respondents to terminate his services. The petitioners case is that in the year 1989 he along with others was appointed as Janjeer Wahak (Chain Man) by Memo No. 628, dated 2.8.1989. In the year 2001, a show cause notice dated 4.1.2001 was issued asking as to why the petitioners services be not terminated. The petitioner filed reply stating inter alia, that his appointment was made after following the prescribed procedure by the competent authority and with the approval of the establishment committee. However, by order dated 8.9.2001 his services were terminated by the State of Bihar. The petitioner had challenged the legality of the order in W.P. (S) No. 5771/2001 as the petitioner was then posted in the State of Jharkhand after reorganization of the State and the State of Bihar had no authority to issue such order. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 12.3.2002 quashing the order of the petitioners termination and directing for his reinstatement. After reinstatement the respondents issued a show cause notice by Memo No. 3390, dated 31.10.2002 asking the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated on the ground that the petitioners appointment was made subject to approval of the Director, Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, but no approval was given and his appointment was made when there was a bar on the appointment and as such the said appointment was not in accordance with law as the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not empowered for such appointments as his power for appointment was withdrawn in the year 1983. The petitioner submitted his reply categorically stating that his appointment on the post of Janjeer Wahak was approved by the establishment committee and the his appointment was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer who had power to appoint and at the relevant time there was no total ban on the appointment of class III and IV posts in the said letter and there was a saving clause that the appointment can be made in exigency. In spite of the same the said impugned letter as contained in Annexure-15 has been issued informing the respondents decision to terminate the petitioner asking him to produce any new fact, plea or evidence. According to the petitioner, the said notice is colourable and the same has been issued after taking decision of terminating his services although all the facts a