22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused Annexure-A contained in supplementary counter affidavit and finds that 3 Men Enquiry Committee came to the finding that some transaction was taken place with regard to Advertisement no. 2 of 2011, whereas, it is a case of Advertisement no. 1 of 2015. This Court also finds that the statement of other member of the Selection Committee was recorded and it was said that the Chairman was in the campus of Hotwar, Ranchi from 07:00 a.m. onwards till past 07:00 p.m. on 13.01.2016 in the conclusion of 3 Men Enquiry Committee. This Court further finds that 3 Men Enquiry Committee also came to the conclusion that the statements of Satya Deo Yadav, Phul Kumari Devi and Madan Pandey are not matching with each other. This Court further finds that there is no allegation of any transaction with regard to the petitioners. The fact finding 3 Men Enquiry Committee has also not lodged any complaint against the petitioners in this regard. This Court further finds that pursuant to the advertisement, due process of selection was taken place, wherein, the petitioners were put on physical test, written test, practical and interview in terms of the advertisement and, thereafter, they have been selected for appointment on those posts. This Court further finds that after the appointment of the petitioners, they have already joined and worked on different places and without issuing any show-cause and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned order was passed, which is in teeth of violation of principles of Audi alteram partem. This Court further finds that the petitioners, who were not involved in manipulation and against them there is no allegation of such manipulation, cannot be allowed to suffer. It was incumbent for the State to segregate the cases of such persons and to take action against those persons, who have committed illegality. The
