BRIJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Aprajita Bansal for opposite party No.s 2, 3 and 4 while learned Standing counsel appears for opposite party No.1.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the Secretary, U.P. State Election Commission, Lucknow as are collectively contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. There are number of petitioners and each has been served with a separate order whereby his services have been dispensed with. In fact, the orders for cancellation of appointment orders of the petitioners dated 23.7.2001 has been passed by the appointing authority himself. Now the petitioners have prayed that they be allowed to continue to work on class IV posts in the office of the State Election Commission, U.P. Lucknow as before and to pay them salary and other consequential benefits. CERTAIN facts will be necessary for adjudication of the matter hence narration of facts is as follows:

(3.) THE petitioners appeared for interview before the selection committee and they were selected by the committee. On 23.7.2001 the appointment orders were issued by the appointing authority. The appointment orders were issued by the then respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners. In the appointment order the appointing authority instead of appointing the petitioners on regular basis has appointed them on consolidated pay on contract basis in view of prevailing ban on fresh recruitment.