- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) ON behalf of appellants, learned Counsel sought distinction from the judgment dated 17.2.1997, rendered in Review Petition No. 36 (w) of 1994: Ram Bahadur Singh v. U.P. Cooperative Federation and Ors. It was firstly contented that the case of the respondent herein was different from the case of the Review applicants before this Court. The review applicants inasmuch as the respondent -herein were appointed for 89 days, for the first period commencing from 1.4.1987. He next contended that the said judgment is also distinguishable on the ground that after services of the respondent were terminated, he was not allowed to continue, but the review applicants were allowed to continue. The respondent approached this Court in the year 1991 against the order of his termination.
(3.) IN so far as the first contention is concerned, we find that the review applicants of review petition were simply placed above the respondent herein, in spite of the fact that they were also appointed for a period of 89 days and thereafter they continued. The distinction as sought on that ground is devoid of merit.;