V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) These are 25 connected writ petitions. S/Sri R. R. Y adav and Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset have made a statement that even though the petitioners are holding different posts in the office of the Regional Marketing Officers of various districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the facts and the questions of law involved in the writ petitions are similar. Arguments have thus been advanced only in the writ petition and have been adopted in the remaining writ petitions.
(2.) The brief facts, relevant for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that ad hoc, temporary and fixed period appointments were being made by the respondents under a Scheme "Rabi Kraya Yojana." The obvious meaning of Rabi Kraya Yojana being that under this Scheme purchases of food-grains were to be made during Rabi season. For that purpose additional staff had to be recruited by the respondents. The said appointment letter in the present writ petition is Annexure "4" from which it is clear that the petitioner, who had not been working at the time of making of the appointment, as his earlier appointments were for a time bound period, was appointed afresh on 23-4-1986 on the post of a Senior Accounts Clerk on ad hoc and temporary post up til 31st July, 1986. It was clearly mentioned in this appointment letter that the appointment was purely seasonal, temporary and time bound and that it could be terminated even before 31st July, 1980 without giving any notice. It was also mentioned that the appointment will automatically come to an end in the afternoon of 31st July, 1986 in case no earlier notice of termination is given. There is a specific mention in the appointment letter that the appointment is made under Rabi Kraya Yojana on temporary seasonal basis and that the posts are only sanctioned till 31st July, 1986. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order, dated 23-4-1986 in so far as it mentions that the petitioner's services would stand terminated automatically w. e. f. 31st July, 1986 and also for a further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the petitioner in continuous service as holding the post of Senior Accounts Clerk and not to interfere in his holding the said post in pursuance of the order, dated 23-4-1986. The grounds which have been taken in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in view of the various Government Orders and also on the principle that the petitioner is being discriminated as juniors to the petitioner are being discriminated as juniors to the petitioner are being retained in service.
(3.) It may be noticed that at the very out set the counsel for the petitioner was asked to make his submission on the question as to why the petitioner should not peruse the alternative statutory remedy available to him by filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal established under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act. It has not been disputed before us that such a claim petition challenging the action of the State Government can be filed by the petitioner as he was admittedly an employee of the State Government. There cannot be any dispute also that the Services Tribunal can grant the relief which has been claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.;