- (1.) These four special appeals and one writ petition involve a common question of law and, as such may be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. The special appeals have all been filed by the State against a judgment of the learned single Judge allowing four writ petitions. The petitioners in all the five writ petitions were appointed as Police Constables. Their services were terminated by giving them one month's pay in lieu of notice under the rules promul Against Judgment of O. P. Trivedi, J. reported in 1975 SLWR 631. gated by Appointment (B) Department Notification No. O.230/II-B-1953, dated January 30, 1953. The contention of the petitioners was that under the provisions of para 541 of the U. P. Police Regulations, their appointment could have been made only in a substantive capacity on probation and they could not have been appointed in a temporary capacity as contended on behalf of the State. Under para 541, a probationer's services can be dispensed with before his confirmation, but that can be done only after he is called upon to show cause as to why he should not be discharged and after a consideration of his representation. As this was not done, the impugned orders of termination are assailed. This contention made in the four writ petitions aforesaid has prevailed with the learned single Judge, and the same contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the fifth writ petition which is originally before us and which has been filed after the petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the termination order before the Public Services Tribunal.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, the respondents in the four appeals whose petitions have been allowed, will also hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners.
(3.) Undisputedly, there is no appointment order in favour of any of the petitioners. It is further undisputed that, according to their service books, their services were described as temporary. It was further admitted in the four writ petitions, which have been allowed as aforesaid, that the posts, on which they were appointed, were permanent posts and that clear vacancies for the permanent appointments did exist. The contention on behalf of the State, however, was that notwithstanding the availability of clear vacancies, the appointments of the petitioners were made in a temporary capacity. Similar seems to be the position with regard to the writ petition which is before us after the petitioner was unsuccessful before the Tribunal. In this case also, the averment in para 1 of the writ petition to the effect that the post was permanent and that no other constable was having any lien to that post has not been specifically rebutted in para 3 of the counter-affidavit. We may, therefore, assume that in all the five cases clear vacancies for permanent posts did exist,;