- (1.) U. P. Singh, J. All three writ petitions raise a common question seeking a direction to be issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh to amend the U. P. Regulansation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 19,9 and the amended Rules 1984, so as to entitle the ad hoc employees of the State Government in Class III cadre in various departments, including the petitioners who have put in one or more than one year of continuous service as such to take such benefit. They have further prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents District Judge, Moradabad, respondent No. 1 to regularise their services and not to hold the Selection Test Scheduled to be held on 15th of December, 1991 and 22-12-1991 in the Moradabad Judgeship.
(2.) IN writ petition No. 242/6 of 1992 (third writ petition), the sole petitioner Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar has in addition to the prayer mentioned above in the other two writ petitions, further prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 2l T February, 1992 (Annexure 10 To The wriT peTiTion), passed by The DisTricT Judge, Moradabad, TerminaTing her services. She has challenged The enTire selecTion daTed 22nd February 1992 being illegal and has prayed for a wriT of mandamus for TreaTing her in conTinuous service. Since all these petitions have raised a common question and more or less similar on facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) IN writ petition No. 37337 of 1991 (first petition) there are five petitioners and in writ petition No. 37340 of 1991 (second petition) there are three petitioners. In short, it may be stated that in the Judgeship of Moradabad the last regular selection for appointment on the post of Class HI cadre was held in the year 1987. Thereafter, since for some reason or the other regular appointments could not be made, certain ad hoc appointments were' made. These eight petitioners of the first and second petitions are amongst the ad hoc employees, working as such, since the dates of their respective appointments. Some were appointed in March 1990 and a few in July 1990 The appointments of these petitioners were ad hoc and they were to continue only till the regular selections could be made. Thus all these eight petitioners had put in one year and few months of service as clerks in the aforesaid Judgeship at the time of the impugned selection.;