S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) WRITTEN statement does not appear to be on the record of this case. Counsel for the respondents states that the written statement has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners also states that a copy of the same was given to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of the written statement which she was having. Counsel for the petitioners has no objection if the same is taken on record as written statement. So ordered.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis on 19.1.1987, 27.1.1987 and 24.1.1987 respectively. Vide order annexure P/3 dated 18.4.1988 their services were terminated. The text of the order is reproduced for ready reference. It is as under : "On the above mentioned subject your attention is attracted and you are informed that the Department has no need of your services. You are hereby terminated with immediate effect." 4. This is an order simplicitor. Counsel for the petitioners argued : (i) that the juniors to the petitioners were retained in service; and (ii) that the termination was because of the absence of the petitioners when the Sub -Divisional Education Officer had inspected the School. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read over para 7 of the writ petition. In para 7(1) it has been stated that although the termination order is simplicitor but actually the services of the petitioners have been terminated because petitioners No. 1 and 2 were not present on 7.12.1987 and petitioner No. 3 was not present on 16.1.1988 in the School when the Sub -Divisional Education Officer inspected the School. The respondents in their written statement have stated in para 3 thereof that the Sub -Divisional Education Officer, Panchkula visited the School on 7.12.1987 and 16.1.1988 respectively and on enquiry it was found that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were absent from the school on 7.12.1987 and petitioner No. 3 was also found absent on 16.1.1988. So the fact of their absence from the school has been admitted. In para7(iv) of the petition, it has been stated that many juniors have been retained in service when the services of the petitioners were terminated. The same has been again alleged in para 7(v) of the writ petition. In the written statement these allegations are not specifically denied except by one sentence of blanket denial. It will be appropriate to quote para 7 of the written statement as under : "that the contents of para No. 7 of the writ petition are wrong and hence denied. The annexure P -3 is legal, fair, constitutional and not arbitrary. The annexure P/3 be upheld as the position has already been explained above in the foregoing paras of the preliminary submission and the written statement on merit." 6. From the above it is found that the allegations are not specifically denied. The allegation regarding juniors being retained in service are also not specifically denied. Counsel for the respondents argued that the appointment of the petitioners were wrongly made and were not made through employment exchange and that the Principal of the School has been charge - sheeted. She also argued that the appointment letters should have been produced by the petitioners. So far as production of appointment letters of the petitioners are concerned, if the respondents really wanted to rely on the same, they could have themselves produced the same. This is not done. The question of charge -sheeting the Principal also does not assume importance in view of the fact that it is not stated in the impugned order that the appointments of the petitioners were illegal or wrong. 7. Counsel for the respondents also argued that the services of the petitioners were temporary and were terminated in accordance with the clause under the appointment order that their services can be dispensed with any time. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., wherein it has been held in paras 31 and 33 as under : "31. In the instant case as we have stated already hereinbefore that though the impugned order was made under the camouflage or cloak of an order of termination simplicitor according to the terms of the employment, yet considering the attendant circumstances which are the basis of the said order of termination, there is no iota of doubt in inferring that the order of termination had been made by way of punishment on the ground of misconduct and adverse entry in service record without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners whose services are terminated and without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. xxxxx 33. It also appears on a consideration of the averments made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Additional Affidavit sworn by one of the appellants Swinder Singh on August 8, 1984, which has not been controverted at all by the respondent, that the respondents though terminated the services of petitioners on the around that "these posts are no longer required" have retained and regularised the services of ad hoc employees mentioned in paragraph 7 as well as ad hoc surveyors who were recruited later in the said post of Surveyors to the prejudice of the rights of the appellants, thereby violating the salutary principle of equality and non -arbitrariness and want of discrimination and as enshrined in Arts. 14 and 6 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of the repetition it may be mentioned that the allegation of juniors being retained has not been denied. In view of the above, order annexure P/3 dated 18.4.1988 cannot be sustained and the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated with continuity of service. 8. In view of the fact that this is a writ petition and the petitioners have not stated that they were not gainfully employed, I do not allow backwages for the interregnum period. 9. As a result, this petition is partly allowed and the order annexure P/3 is set aside. The petitioners are ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof. These directions be carried out within two months from today. 10. Petition partly allowed;