SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) BOTH these cases are connected involving common questions of facts and law and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.
(2.) THESE intra Court appeals have been filed against the judgement dated 05.08.1999 of Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 27567 of 1992. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by seven persons but the two appeals have been preferred only by the persons who were impleaded as petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 therein. The petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners") were appointed in Banda District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Banda (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") on daily wage basis. The copy of the appointment letter dated 15.09.1988 of Vinod Kumar, one of the petitioner, is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The appointment was made by the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank. The appointment letter clearly states that the petitioner, Vinod Kumar shall be entitled for wages for those days only on which he would be engaged by the Bank. The petitioner, Brij Bhushan Singh was appointed vide order dated 06.04.1990 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). In all other aspects it is similar to that of appointment letter of Vinod Kumar. The petitioner, Kailash Chandra Dhuria claims to have worked as daily wager since 01.10.1988 and onwards and in this regard instead of filing his appointment letter he has filed a copy of the certificate dated 30.03.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Vide order dated 24.10.1991 the petitioners alongwith eight others were made ad hoc and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 815-1520. The said appointment was for a period of six months and with a further stipulation that their services are temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice. The aforesaid order is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The said engagement was extended up to 31.05.1992 vide order dated 08.05.1992. Thereafter it is said that the petitioners were not allowed to work and respondents Bank advertised eight vacancies of Assistant to be filled in by direct recruitment on temporary basis. Challenging the aforesaid termination as well as advertisement the the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 27567 of 1992 seeking the following reliefs: "(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 08.05.1992 and 27.06.1992; (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as they are continuing for the last three years; (iii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents not to proceed with any appointment in pursuant of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper Dainik Trishul dated 27.06.1992; (iv) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to function as Sahyogi in the Zila Sahkari Bank and put their signatures on the attendance register; (v) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (vi) Award cost of the writ petition."
(3.) THE respondent-Bank filed counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that the recruitment and condition of service of the employees are governed by U.P. Cooperative Employees Societies Services Regulation, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation 1975"). It is also said that the recruitment to class IV posts can be made under Regulation 5 to 15 of the Regulation, 1975 i.e. by advertisement of vacancies, selection through a regular selection committee constituted in accordance with the Regulation, 1975 etc. Since regular selection was to take some time, the Bank resolved to make stop gap arrangement and in pursuant thereto the petitioners and some other were engaged on daily wage basis and subsequently they were made ad hoc appointees on tenure basis which has not been extended after 31.05.1992. The appointment being for a fixed tenure, had automatically come to an end after expiry of the said period and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to continue.;