B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THESE fourteen writ petitions raise a common question of law and facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Sweepers in the Municipal Board, Nokha, vide Resolution dated 6.3.1993. Some irregularities were pointed -out by the Executive Officer in the appointments given to the petitioners and, therefore, the State Government, vide order dated 10.3.93, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners on the posts of Sweeper Bhisti. It is against this order dated 10.3.93, that the petitioners have preferred these fourteen writ petitions. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the order Annexure. l, while giving appointments to the petitioners, no condition was imposed and the appointments of the petitioners were for a period of six months and, therefore, before the expiry of the period of six months and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the orders of appointment cannot be cancelled. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the State Government and submitted that one Mr. Babu Lal Jain was given the charge of the post of the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha, as the post fell vacant on account of suspension of the Chairman Mr. K.L. Jhanwar, and within a period of six days of his appointment, he gave appointments to these eighteen persons. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that before giving appointments to the petitioners, the procedure provided under the Rules was not followed and the appointments were given in undue haste. They have further submitted that the applications for seeking appointments were submitted by twelve persons on 6.3.93 and by four persons on 5.3.93, and therefore, there was no question of calling the meeting of the Selection Committee for giving appointments to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that the appointments were given in clear violation of the Rules and, therefore, the Court is not expected to affirm the illegal orders giving appointments.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;