- (1.) V. K. Gupta, C. J. By this common judgment, all the four appeals are being disposed of to gether.
(2.) IT was on 20th April, 2002 that re spondents Nos. 1 to 5 in Special Appeal No. 53 of 2006, who were holding the sub stantive posts of Senior Clerks / Junior Clerks in the Transport Department were entrusted with the additional responsibili ties of the posts of Assistant Regional In spectors (Technical ). The appointment or der No. 243 2002 dated 20th April, 2002 clearly stated that until permanent arrangements were made, these five persons, in their own pay scale and status, would be discharging the additional responsibilities of the posts of Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical ). The concluding part of this order clearly stated that for discharge of these addi tional responsibilities, these persons will not be paid any extra salary or allowances. IT was also stated that this arrangement was totally temporary. An order was issued on 4th March, 2003 by the State Government, whereby the aforesaid ad-hoc, temporary arrange ment with respect to these five respond ents was brought to an end. Actually this was done through a communication of the State Government, emanating from the State Government in the Transport Depart ment addressed to the Transport Commis sioner. In implementation of this commu nication, on 19th March, 2003 vide his communication No. 1800/2003 of this date, the Transport Commissioner issued an Office Order bringing to an end, with immediate effect, the arrangement evolved in the order dated 20th April, 2002 (supra ). Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 chal lenged the aforesaid two orders dated 4th March, 2003 and 19th March, 2003 by filing Writ Petition No. 251 of 2003 (SIB) in this Court. Respondent No. 1 in Spe cial Appeal No. 52 of 2006 also filed Writ Petition No. 384 of 2004 (S/s) on the same grounds. Vide common judgment dated 10th July, 2006 passed in both these writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of. this Court, while allowing the writ peti tions, quashed the order dated 4th March, 2003 and declared that the writ petition ers would continue to work as Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical) till the posts were filled- up by regularly appointed candidates. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us in these appeals.
(3.) THE main ground upon which the learned Single Judge rested his judgment was that the impugned order dated 4th March, 2003 could not have legally been passed without affording Opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. We do not agree with this view of the learned Single Judge for the following reasons: First and foremost, the so called appointment order dated 20th April, 2002 actually was neither any appointment or der in any sense nor did it amount to the promotion of writ petitioners nor did it confer any right upon the writ petitioners. In clear, categorical and unequivocal terms, the said order only stated that the petitioners, who were Senior and Junior Clerks were given the additional responsi bilities, in their own pay scale and status, of the work of Assistant Regional Inspec tor (Technical) and that this arrangement did not entitle them to receive any addi tional or extra pay or allowances. It also stated that this arrangement was purely temporary in nature. This, therefore, did not confer any right upon the writ petition ers. The State Government as well as the Transport Commissioner, therefore, were well within their rights to terminate this arrangement at any time they liked be cause such termination of the said ar rangement did not violate or breach any right of the writ petitioners.;