- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondent No. 1 not to terminate the services of the petitioners as threatened in his letter dated 23rd May 1985 addressed to the Employment Exchange Officer, Muzaffarnagar. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued requiring the respondent No 1 to treat the petitioners as regularly selected candidates to the post of tempo rary registration clerks in view of their selection in accordance with 1979 Niyamawali in 1983.
(2.) IT may be pointed oat at the very outset that the stay order was obtained by the petitioners on 8-8- 1985 suspending the operation of the termination notice dated 26-7-1985. The stay order dated 8-8- 1985 is being quoted below :- 8 "issue notice. In spite of time being granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances, we suspend operation of the notice dated 26-7-1985 issued to the petitioners. " The petitioners' case is that certain temporary posts of registration clerks were created in the district of Muzaffarnagar to cope with the heavy arrears of work load. The names of the petitioners were initially forwarded by the Employment Exchange Officer. Thereafter a written test and inter view was held by a selection committee in accordance With the Subordinate Offices Clerical Direct Recruitment, IVth Amendment, Rules, 1979 (herein after referred to as the Rules ). It is alleged that ten candidates were selected for the district including the five petitioners. Later on, it appears that a decision was taken that instead of offering temporary appointments, the candidate may be appointed as daily wages. The appointment letters were issued on 4-3-1983 accordingly. However, later on, the department decided to offer temporary appointments to all the candidates and issued letters of appointment as such on 2-9- 1983. The petitioners have alleged that though the posts were temporary but extended from year to year. Later on, it appears that on the instruction of the Inspector General (Regis tration), their appointments were dispensed with. They were advised to get their names registered in the Employment Exchange Office and fresh selection would be held. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed. It is alleged that twenty-eight posts were created as daily wages in December, J982 vide Annexure-SC A-l to the supplementary counter- affidavit. It may be added that there were ten substantive posts lying vacant for routine grade clerks but these posts were not filled in as no regular selection could take place. Only 28 posts of daily wages were filled in after holding selection. The requisition letter of the 28 posts was sent to the Employment Exchange and the appointments so given were upto 31st March, 1983 to cope with the heavy arrears of work load. In the appointment letters, it was also made clear that they were not being appointed against the temporary posts. It appears that later on the work could not be finished and a request was made for the extension of these posts of daily wages to the I. G. Registration and the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. However, the said request was turned down as there was no budget for these posts after March, 1983. It is also alleged that the appointments were not found in accordance with the rules and later on, I. G. Registration wrote a letter to the District Registrar that the appointments were not made in accordance with rules and the procedures may be followed. In para 8 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is also alleged that the petitioners were called in person on 21-5-1985 by the District Registrar and he advised them that they may get themselves registered with the Employment Exchange, so that when regular selection takes place, they may get the benefit of their past service.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that no reason was assign ed for dispensing the services of the petitioner after due selection. The services of the petitioners were dispensed with in May, 1985 whereupon this writ petition was filed and the stay order was granted on 8-8-1985. The petitioners are continuing in service under the Courts' orders for about eleven years. The petitioners have no control over the early disposal of the case on account of heavy dockets in the court and nobody can be punished for a state of thing over which he has no control. The petitioners with the passage of time, must have become over age and they may not be able to get service in other place. They have heavy responsi bility of children and members of family. It would be unreasonable and arbitrary if they are kicked off from the job. It would also be unfair to deprive them of the right of livelihood provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact, nothing has been brought on record to show that they were part of the so-called irregularities in the selection. No cogent evidence has been brought on record to convince us that there were irregularities in the selection.;