SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IN all these writ petitions common questions of law and facts are involved hence have been hear together and are being decided by this common judgement. In all these writ petitions the termination orders have been passed on 15th December, 2003. In writ petition No.5336 of 2004 filed by Iftekhar Hussain, the order of termination has been passed stating that he was appointed as Class IV employee (Peon-cum-Chaukidar) by order dated 19th October, 2002 though no such vacancy was available since only 10 sanction posts exist which were all occupied and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the rules hence his appointment is being cancelled. The orders of termination in writ petition No.5432 of 2004 filed by Kishan Pal Singh, 5430 of 2004 filed by Kamal Kumar, 5334 of 2004 filed by Mustkeem Husain, 5332 of 2004 filed by Sanjai Kumar and 5330 of 2004 filed by Raju are all similarly worded. Another orders of termination though are of same date i.e. of 15th December, 2003 have been passed by which services of the petitioners have been terminated in purported exercise of power under Rule 3 of U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to "1975 Rules" by stating that it is no longer required. This impugned order are also worded similarly in all the writ petitions.
(3.) IT is vehemently contended by Sri. V.S.Sinha, counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed after observance of the procedure prescribed in the rules and therefore, could not have been terminated in such an illegal and arbitrary manner. He further contended that despite of the interim order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the show cause notice and despite of an interim order passed therein, the respondent- appointing authority passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2003 with back date so as to give an impression as if the impugned orders of termination have been passed before communication of the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition No.55247 of 2003 filed by the petitioners-Iftekhar Hussain and 4 others and Writ Petition No.55249 of 2003 filed by Sanjai Kumar. He lastly contended that though the petitioners submitted their reply against the show cause notice but the impugned order nowhere show to have discussed the same and therefore also it is liable to be set aside.;