Vijay Bahuguna, J. - (1.) These three writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and with the consent of counsel for parties they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) By means of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 1st of April, 1992, passed by the Managing Director of the U.P. State Spinning Company Limited, which is a U.P. Government undertaking and a subsidiary of the U.P. State Textile Corporation Limited. By the said order the services of the petitioners, who were working as Assistant Grade II, were terminated. The petitioners were appointed as probationers on different dates in 1990. The petitioners were appointed Assistants Grade II on a probation of two years. It was mentioned in the letters of appointment that the probation period could be extended for a further period of one year without assigning any reason and that their services were liable to be terminated during or at the end of the original or the extended period of probation, as the case may be, without assigning any reason.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in terminating the services of the petitioners as their work was fully satisfactory, the posts had not been abolished and no reason have been given for terminating their services and further no opportunity was given to them. The petitioners allege that persons junior to then have been retained in service, whereas their services has been terminated.;