Jayant Banerji, J. - (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8 January 2018 passed in Writ Petition No.- 16090 of 1986 by means of which the challenge to the order of termination dated 14 August 1986 by the petitioners was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) The facts as narrated in the writ petition are that in the year 1984 certain vacancies arose in the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Bareilly Zone and names were called from the Employment Exchange. Several persons applied for the posts. Call letters were issued to the petitioners and after being duly selected by the Department Selection Committee, the petitioners were appointed as 'Junior Clerks' and appointment letters were issued. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on 30 November 1984 and the petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 19 December 1984. On 14 August 1986, the Deputy Transport Commissioner- respondent no. 3 terminated the services of all the three petitioners. This order of termination was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition on the ground of arbitrariness, lack of opportunity and non-application of mind. It was alleged in the petition that fresh adhoc appointments were going to be made on the posts of the petitioners. It was also alleged that the persons junior to the petitioners were continuing in service. In supplementary affidavit, the petitioners enclosed an advertisement published in 'Hindi Daily' dated 22 September 1986 advertising the posts against which the services of the petitioners were terminated.
(3.) In the counter affidavit to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that in order to fill up the existing vacancy of the Junior Clerks,names of candidates were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange, Bareilly and on receipt of applications, after appearing for a type test, the applicants were called for personal interviews on 22 November 1984. A three member Committee was constituted for conducting the personal interview of the candidates. However, before the interview could be held, one of the members of the Committee raised an objection that the vacancies were required to be notified. The applicants who had applied directly had also been included in the list of candidates to be interviewed. It was, therefore, decided that in order to cope up with the work for time being, an adhoc arrangement could be made but the vacancies had to be notified.;