Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners were appointed as Tehsil Publicity Organisers in the grade of Rs. 160-500 in Aug., 1973. They were regularised against those posts in Sept., 1974. In Sept., 1976. posts of Assistant Public relations Officers in the grade of 200-500 were advertised by the Subordinate Services selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The petitioners filed applications and they were recommended for appointment by the Board, on May 2, 1977. In view of the recommendations of the board, they were appointed by the Additional Director as Assistant Public Relations Officers vide order dated June 8, 1979 (copy annexure P. 1) with effect from June,7 1979. It is stated that the Commissioner, Information and Public relations Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated July 17, 979 (copy Annexure P. I) cancelled the orders dated June 8, 1979 by which the petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Public Relations officers The said order has been challenged through the writ petition.
(2.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the order of appointment was void ab initio as it had been made after the expiry of 6 months from the date of the recommendations of the Board Consequently, it is averred, the Government was competent to withdraw or cancel the order which was in contravention of the rules instructions of the Government.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no rule or instruction that a person recommended by the Board cannot be appointed against a post if the appointment has not been made within a period of six months He further submits that in any case if there were any such rules or instructions, the petitioners should have been given an adequate opportunity of representing their case before cancelling the order of their appointment He also argues that the order of cancellation is a non-speaking order and it is liable to be set aside.;