AMBI BISHT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions involve the same questions of fact and law as same orders of termination of services of the petitioners have been challenged, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders of termination of their services dated 24.3.1998 and 27.3.1998 passed by the State Government with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties to consider the petitioners for regularization in service on their respective posts and to continue them with all benefits of service.

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22,3.1995 the petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc basis under Rule 31 of the U. P. Palika Centralized Service Rules. 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on different posts, i.e., Executive Officers of Nagar Palika, Tax Superintendent. Nagar Nigam. Tax Superintendent. Nagar Palika category I, II and III, Assistant Tax Superintendent. Nagar Palika Category I, Tax Inspector Nagar Nigam, Tax Inspector Nagar Palika Category II and III and Accountants, for a period of one year or till the regularly selected candidates from the U. P. Public Service Commission are made available, whichever is earlier. Subsequently this period was extended by the State Government by order dated 16th February. 1996 for a period of six months or till 31st October, 1996. whichever is earlier. Thereafter the period of ad hoc appointment was not extended. By order dated 10th December. 1996 the petitioners were reappointed on ad hoc basis on their respective posts for the period till the selected candidates from the U. P. Public Service Commission are not made available. Thereafter by the impugned orders dated 24.3.1998 and 27.3.1998 the services of all the petitioners were terminated. Aggrieved against the said termination orders dated 24.3.1998 and 27.3.1998 the petitioners have come up before this Court.