Amarbir Singh Gill, J. - (1.) THE petitioners invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for issuance of order or direction in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the termination orders of their respective services and further order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the opposite party to allow the petitioners to continue to work on the posts and they be paid salary alongwith other benefits admissible under the service and to regularise their services.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners the Secretary Vidhan Sabha Sachivalaya, Lucknow, opposite party conducted a written test in the year 1985-86 for preparation of a waiting list of Lower Division Assistants (L.D. As.) and Typist to meet out the exigen cies and workload during the period of Ses sion of U.P. Legislative Assembly and to make stop-gap-arrangements. Both the petitioners passed the selection and their names were brought on the waiting list. They were allowed to work from time to time but they continued to work from 1-1-91 to 1-3-94 regularly without any break. The seniority list was also prepared and persons upto serial No. 58 i.e. above the petitioners have already been absorbed against the clear and regular vacancies. Their names appeared in the seniority list at serial Nos. 59 and 60 respectively. However, their ser vices have been dispensed with by an oral order of termination with effect from 2-3-94 arbitrarily. There were two posts lying vacant, against which the petitioners could have been allowed to work. The petitioners claim that they have right to hold the post, as they were duly selected and other selected persons are still working. According to the case of the op posite party the appointments of the petitioners were entirely on temporary/ad hoc basis towards stop-gap-arrangement on the posts created under the delegated powers of the Speaker for limited period and the term of the created posts, on which the petitioners were appointed came to an end and their services also stood terminated automatically. The seniority list, on the basis of which the petitioners have claimed seniority, was cancelled by the Hon'ble Speaker on 23-7-92. It was claimed that the last appointment orders issued to the petitioners were against the posts which were created by order dated 31-5-93 for a period from 1-6-93 to 31-11-93, which was extended to 28-2-94 vide order dated 30-11-93 and since the posts were created upto 28-2-94 only, the appointments of the petitioners were co-terminus with the aboli tion of the posts. It is also claimed that other employees had filed writ petitions in the Court and the directions were received from this Court for keeping six posts alive, be sides the quota for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates was not fulfilled and also that in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat there were 41 Telephone Operators/Supervisors, who had become surplus due to closure of PBX Exchanges, have been adjusted to work on clerical posts. Last plea was that since the petitioners did not have any right to any post, they could not claim regularisation on account of their working on stop-gap- ar rangement. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
(3.) THE petitioners have annexed various appointments Transfer orders, Annexures 1 to 10, to indicate their appoint ments at different intervals of time by the opposite party and in the petition itself in para 4 petitioners have given the details of their appointments, which are reproduced below:- "Petitioner No. 1. 25-2-87 to 13-3-87 15-6-87 to 24-7-87 9-2-89 to 10-4-89 21-9-89 to 3-10-89 2-1-90 to 20-1-90 1-3-90 to 12-3-90 8-5-90 to 20-7-90 18-8-901030-11-90 1-1-91 to 28-2-94 Petitioner No. 2 1-3-88 to 5-5-88 29-9-88 to 10-10-88 4-2-S9 to 10-4-89 21-9-89to3-10-89 2-1-90 to20-l-90 25-1-90 to21-2-90 1-3-90 to3-4-90 12-4-90 to 30-4-90 1-5-90 to 30-11-90 1-1-91 to 28-2-94" The appointment orders specifically indicated the appointment as purely tem porary, which could be terminated at any time without notice. The appointments were made either to meet the rush of work during the period of Vidhan Sabha Session only as the appointments referred to Ses sional posts created under the different departmental orders. As per example the order dated 26- 12-89 regarding the ap pointment of Km. Shakuntala Rani and Pradeep Kumar Trivedi as Typist reads as under:- "With effect from 2-1-1990 or the date of joining whichever is later, the following employees/candidates are hereby appointed in an officiating capacity on post and in pay scale men tioned above their names against Sessional posts created under the departmental order No. 5968/VS/Adhi./2/ 90, dated December, 26, 1989 and the chain thereof: 4. Km. Shankuntala Rani 5. Sri Pradeep Kumar Trivedi 2. All the above appointments are purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without notice. No T.A. is payable to the can didates at the time of joining or termination of service. Sd/- Bhal Chandra Shukla Sachiv." The order dated 12-3-90 in respect of petitioner Km. Shakuntala Rani is reproduced below:- "Km. Shakuntala Rani is hereby appointed in officiating capacity on L.D.A. post in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 from the afternoon of March 12,1990 against the vacancy created due to medical leave sanctioned to Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaube, officiating L.D.A. Vidhan Sabha Sachivalaya from March 3,1990 vide office Memo No. 1394/Vi.Sa/Adhi./13/84 dated 7-3-90. The above appointment of Km. Shakuntala Rani is purely temporary and can be terminated any time without prior notice. Sd/- Bhal Chandra Shukla Secretary.";