- (1.) THE instant petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 19 July 1987, contained in Annexure 5, to the writ petition, passed by respondent 2 and order, dated 17 April, 1989, contained in annexure 6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent 1.
(2.) PETITIONER were appointed in 1977 and 1978 for a short period from time to time by respondent 2 which is evident from the orders, dated 16 April, 1987, 27 April 1987, 31 July 1987, 11 April 1988 and 19 July 1989, contained in annexures 2 to 4 to the writ petition. The petitioners were given work-charge employment and vide order, dated 19 july 1989, the services of the petitioners had been terminated as respondent 1 had allotted the work of Tendu Patta collection to respondent 3, vide order, dated April 17, 1989. The said order of termination has been challenged in the instant writ petition.
(3.) THE main contention raised by Sri ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that respondents 2 and 3 both are instrumentalities of the State and even if the contract to collect the tendu Pattas had been allotted to respondent 3 by respondent 1 in the year 1989. The petitioners' services could not be terminated. Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehementally opposed and argued that respondents 2 and 3 are separate legal entities governed by separate statutes and respondent 3 is not concerned with the liability by respondent 2. It is the exclusive prerogative of the State to allot the work to anybody as the agent of the state to collect Tendu Pattas under S. 4 of the Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam)Adhiniyam, 1972, and respondent 2 had been given the said agency only for the year of 1987 and 1988. Respondent 2 during that period required the services of the work-charge employees to collect tendu Pattas, but in 1989 when the said work had been allotted to respondent 3, the services of the petitioners were no more required and terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment.;