Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.)A short question with regard to the right of regularisation of service has been canvassed in this writ application. Before coming to the said question, the fact of the matter in brief may be noticed. The petitioners who are 5 in number were all appointed from time to time by the respondent No. 2 Company which is said to be a Government of India Undertaking. It is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in relation to each of the petitioners separately but suffice it to state the case of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 was appointed on a purely temporary basis for four months on 21-11-1981. The said offer of appointment is contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application. According to the petitioner No.l he continued in service but it appears that he was again, appointed as Typist-cum-clerk on a purely temporary basis by an offer of appointment dated 12th Sept., 1985 with effect from 17-9-85 till 31-10-1985.
(2.)From the note-sheet dated 5-4-83 as contained in Annexure B' to the writ application it appears that the petitioner was appointed at the Trombay Site at a monthly salary of Rs. 800.00 purely on exigencies of work and recommendation was made to the effect that it would be beneficial to the company if the petitioner is retained in the service on permanent basis. From a note-sheet dated 1-10-85 it appears that the service of the petitioner was proposed to be terminated and he was to be taken back in service in Nov., 1985 and after that in Dec., 1985 he could be given appointment letter for Vindyachal Project. The said petitioner was given appointment on purely temporary basis tier the Vindyachal Project by an offer of appointment dated 24-1-86. However the service of the petitioners was terminated in the year 1989. They filed a writ application in this Court questioning the aforementioned order of termination.
(3.)Dr. Tapas Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has produced before me a copy of the said writ application, from a perusal thereof it appears that in the said writ application the petitioners did not seek for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to absorb them in their services. The said writ application was marked as C.O. No. 5336 (W) of 1990. By an order dated 4-1-95 a learned single Judge of this Court upon taking into consideration of the few decisions of the Supreme Court of India and also of this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically for regularisation of their services and/or absorption against regular posts having regard to the continuous services rendered by them during the period from 25th Jan., 1986 when they were initially appointed till 28th Jan., 1989, when their services were sought to be terminated and in keeping with the observation made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. Admittedly pursuant to the aforementioned direction of this Court the petitioners not only were allowed to file their respective written submissions but were also given an opportunity of personal hearing. By reason of the impugned order dated 11-3-95 as contained in Annexure 'S' to the writ application the petitioners' claim has been rejected by the Manager (Personnel) of the respondent No. 2-Company, inter alia,on the following grounds :
(1) the appointments of the petitioners were project oriented and on a purely temporary basis.

(2) The said period of the work in relation to the said Project is over.

(3) The Department itself has been abolished.

(4) There does not exist any permanent vacancy.

(5) There has been a temporary ban on recruitment.

(6) The Company was over staffed.

;