- (1.) By this order, we propose to dispose of two connected Latters Patent Appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent bearing Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1994 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest likewise.
(2.) Petitioners, Jai Narain and nine others including appellant herein - Sat Pal (in CWP No. 2999 of 1986 giving rise to LPA No. 1220 of 1994) and petitioners Madan Lal and two others, including appellant Anand Singh (in CWP No. 30(sic) of 1986, giving rise to LPA No. 1221 of 1994) clamoured for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order, Annexure P-3, dated May 22, 1986 vide which petitioner No. 5 Suman Bala in CWP No. 2999 of 1986 and order dated May 22, 1986, Annexure P-2, vide which petitioner No. 1 Madan Lal in CWP No. 3023 of 1986, who were working on ad hoc basis as Social Studies Instructors, were asked to quit. They were ordered to be relieved immediately. Other petitioners, as per fheir case, were, however not served an order of termination of their services. It was pleaded that with regard lo other petitioners also similar orders had since been issued. It was further prayed that services of petitioners be regularised.
(3.) It is quite apparent from reading of the impugned order dated May 11, 1994, passed by the learned Single Judge that cause of petitioners so as to set aside orders of termination was not pressed. It is the alternative prayer with regard io regularisation of their services that alone seems to have been mooted. The impugned order passed in CWP No. 2999 of 1986 shows that learned State counsel slated that whereas, services of petitioners 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 had since been regularised, petitioners 2, 5 and 8 were not entitled to any relief as they were neither in service when order of status quo was passed nor at the time when orders were passed by the learned Single Judge. Insofar as pefitioner No. 1 is concerned, he had since expired before the writ petition could be taken up for final hearing. This contention of learned State counsel was not repelled by the counsel representing the petitioners. It is on the basis of these two statements alone that writ qua petitioners 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 was disposed of as having become in-frucuous whereas qua petitioners 2, 5 and 8 it was dismissed. Inasmuch as services of petitioner No. 10 had not been regularised, a direction was issued to do so with immediate effect.;