A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) This writ petition is an offshoot of a challenge to the selections of class-IV employees in the office of the learned Advocate General and the Government Advocate at Allahabad. The 14 petitioners, in this writ petition, are out of the 50 selected candidates, whose services have been terminated on account of the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006 on 9.3.2006. The respondent No. 4 was petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid writ petition and has been impleaded as Respondent herein by this Court's order dated 13.12.2006. The other respondents namely 5 to 8 and 11 are also similarly situate but they were not parties to Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 had qualified in the written examinations but they failed to appear in the interview.
(2.) The challenge is, that the order impugned dated 10.4.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners which has now been brought on record by way of an amendment application, is an order passed without disclosing any valid reasons and indicating the irregularities which had warranted the cancellation of the appointments and, as such, it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners allege that there is absolutely no discrepancy in their selections and the statement given by the learned Advocate General before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006 was not founded on any material. It is contended that the petitioners were not made parties to the said writ petition and the judgment was delivered merely on the concessional statement made by the then learned Additional Advocate General and the proceedings were terminated as no further orders were required to be passed in the said writ petition. It is alleged, that the judgment indicates that a decision was taken by the learned Advocate General to cancel the entire selections, but in effect there was no such decision by the learned Advocate General and the impugned order of termination clearly recites that the services are being terminated on account of the judgment of this Court. It is alleged that the issue as to whether the selections were vitiated or not was not adjudicated at all and even otherwise the affected parties including the petitioners were never put to notice about the said proceedings nor were they impleaded as parties when the judgment was delivered on 9.3.2006. The order dated 6.3.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006 was a prima facie opinion and not a conclusive opinion. No Affidavit was filed as per the said order and as such the observations contained therein are not an adjudication which could be made the basis of cancellation. While passing final orders on 9.3.2006, this Court did not adjudicate the issue and an assessment was made on the basis of prima facie material without holding any proper enquiry and without any opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the same.
(3.) It is further urged that the judgment dated 9.11.2005 in the case of Sanjeev Sharma, as referred to in the judgment dated 9.3.2006, has absolutely no application or bearing on the rights of the applicant and, therefore, there was absolutely no basis existing in law as well as any fact for cancelling the appointment of the petitioners. Even otherwise the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Some other grounds have also been raised which shall be discussed in the judgment later on but broadly the challenge is that there was no occasion for having terminated the services of the applicant as there was no such direction by this Court to that effect.;