RAMCHANDER Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four appellants who are before us were appointed as Lekhpals under the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue on ad hoc basis. The dates of their appointments, as set out in the impugned judgment are-appellant No. 1-12-11-1980; appellant No. 2-11-3-1981; appellant No. 3-6-10-1982; and appellant No. 4 - 12-11-1982. Their services were terminated under orders issued in 1984. Copies of only two orders of termination are annexed. The first order is dated 24-2-1984. The name of the employee is left blank in the copy. The second order bears of the name of the first appellant. But the date is incomplete. It is of June, 1984. Apart from stating that termination orders are dated 24-2-1984/2-6-1984, learned counsel for both the sides are unable to produce anything more. Both the termination orders refer to earlier order of 17-2-1984.

(2.) In 1979, the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules were promulgated. Rule 4 of the 1979 Rules provides as follows:

(3.) On 23rd March, 1984 the above Rules were amended by the addition of Rule 9 to these Rules. Rule 9 is as follows: