(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The might of the State questions the direction of this Court for appointment with regard to a Sweeper on a Class-IV post.
(2.) We have gone through the order under appeal. Suffice it to say that what is urged by the appellants as an appointment contrary to law was the creation of the officers of the respondents.
(3.) We would have appreciated the bona fides of the state if it had while preferring the present appeal, it had simultaneously lodged an F.I.R. against its officers whose conduct has led to the institution of the present appeal. The appellants cannot have their Cake and eat to it too.