- (1.) 37 petitioners pray to quash various orders (as contained in an-nexures 7, 8and 9 to the writ petition), passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY the letters of appoint ment of the petitioners were issued by the authorities and that they had also proceeded to join their respective post and started working as well. The only ground on which their appointments were nullified is that there has been irregularities in their selection. Mr. Negi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that earlier also at the instance of other similarly situated persons writs were filed but dismissed by the Court - vide Suresh Chandra Tewari V. State of U. P. 1990 UPLBEC 484. In reply Sri Triloki Nath, learned counsel appearing in support of the peti tion, contended that in the writ petitions filed earlier by other persons no appoint ment letter was issued to them nor had those persons joined their posts. This distinguish ing feature apart, it is not the finding of the Inquiry Officer, whose report has been filed today by the respondents, that the petitioners were not qualified for their ap pointment whereas in those cases the find ing was that those petitioners were not duly qualified.
(3.) WE find from perusal of the report that Inquiry officer has not recorded any finding as to which of the petitioners were disqualified to be appointed. This Court had also passed an interlocutory order in favour of the petitioners as a result of which they are still continuing in service. This fact has also not been disputed before us. Thus, it is clear that the principles of natural justice were violated and for the aforementioned reason alone the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. In the result this writ petition is allowed in part, the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 7 to 9 are quashed. However, it will be open to the respondents to pass any further appropriate order in accordance with law. We clarified that if there are materials for specifically holding as to which of the petitioners despite not being qualified were appointed in that event it will be open for them to terminate their services in accordance with law.;