S.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) This and the companion writ petition of Anil Kumar Singh raise the same controversy and, therefore, the two petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) In the instant petition, there are four petitioners. The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed as Class IV employees on daily wages. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner No. 4 too was appointed on daily wages. However, it is clear that the petitioner No 4 was given a temporary appointment. The sale petitioner Anil Kumar Singh too was employed as a class IV employee on daily wages. In both the petitions, in substance, two prayers have been made. First, a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners as Class IV employees. Secondly, the respondents should be directed to pay to the petitioners the same wages which were then paid by them to the regularly appointed Class IV employees.
(3.) So far as the first prayer is concerned, in the counter-affidavit filed by and on behalf of the State in instant petition, the averments made are these. Prior to 30th May, 1987, one Dr Srivastava was the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi. He made appointments of Class IV employees against the existing Rules and Government Orders issued from time to time. He even made appointments at dispensaries which were not in existence. He made appointments even though there was no need to make any appointment preceding him one Dr. L. N. Singh also made illegal appointments on daily wages. The two doctors in collusion made 7 to 8 appointments. There were no posts for making any appointment. When these facts came to light, the Chief Medical Officer. Varanasi, terminated the services of the fore mentioned appointees. In view of these averments it will be difficult, if not impossible, for this Court to give a direction as prayed for. No doubt, the petitioners have asserted that they were appointed in existing vacancies and on existing posts. Be that as it may, basically some questions of fact have to be investigated and findings recorded. In our opinion the proper form for the petitioners is the U.P. Public Service Tribunal where the petitioners can prefer claim petitions.;