SURESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these four appeals, the appellants have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge who had been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants herein who had been appointed as Class-IV employees on the basis of an express order of appointment stating that they were appointed for a period of one year and after expiry of the period of one year, their services were terminated. Having felt aggrieved of the order of termination they filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the same but the learned Single Judge for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment & order, was pleased to reject all the four writ petitions against which these appeals have been preferred.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned-judgment & order of the learned Single Judge, it was vehemently and with excessive zeal argued by the counsel representing the petitioners-appellants that even though the appointments of the petitioners-appellants were on the basis of an order which was to remain effective for a period of one year only they have a right to continue on the post till regularly selected candidates are available. Elaborating this argument, it was endeavoured to impress upon this Court that the appointments were made after regular process and procedure, in the sense that the posts were regularly advertised to which the appellants had applied after which they also appeared for interview and then they were granted order of appointment for a period of one year only which itself was illegal on the part of the employer-State.