VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-union, Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karmchari Sangh, INTUC (Rajasthan), through its President, Shri Samson Bhagora, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein that the letter dated 10. 7. 2001 (Annexure 9), issued by the State of Rajasthan, may be declared illegal and invalid; the same may be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners-union, as mentioned in Appendix `a', in pursuance to the letter dated 10. 7. 2001 (Annexure 9 ). It is also prayed that the appropriate Government may be directed to refer the reference to the labour Court.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the instant petition are that vide order dated 19. 5. 1993 (Annexure 1), the petitioners, as mentioned in Appendix `a', were called for interview on 22. 5. 1993, for the post of Mahila Hand Pump Mistry. THE Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bichhiwara, District - Dungarpur, Respondent No. 4, has sought list of eligible candidates from the concerned Project Officer, Swachh Pariyojana, Dungarpur, which was made available to him vide letter No. 1120-25 dated 18. 5. 1993 of Respondent No. 3 - Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur. THE further case of the petitioners-union is that they were imparted necessary training from 18. 6. 1993 to 31. 8. 1993 as Mahila Hand Pump Mistry. THEreafter, vide order dated 6. 2. 1995 (Annexure 2), issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bichhiwara, District - Dungarpur, the petitioners, as mentioned in Appendix `a', were given appointment on the post of Mahila Hand Pump Mistry. In pursuance to the order dated 6. 2. 1995 (Annexure 2), an amendment order dated 5. 8. 1996 (Annexure 3) was issued, whereby a sum of Rs. 34/- per day or a maximum of Rs. 884/- per month were ordered to be given. For regularizing the services of the Hand Pump Mistry and giving them regular pay scales, a writ petition, bearing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4656/90 (Radhey Shyam Dhobi vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) and No. 287/91 of Hand Pump Workers Union & Others, were filed, which were decided vide order dated 26. 8. 1991. Thereafter, the Government - Respondents preferred S. L. P. No. 409-410/95 (Government of Rajasthan vs. Ratan Lal Gohar) before the Supreme Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 25. 8. 1995. Then, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Respondent No. 1-the Director & Deputy Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department, Rajasthan Government, Jaipur issued orders dated 17. 10. 1995, 30. 12. 1995 and 28. 2. 1996 (Annexures 4 to 6) respectively, giving necessary guidelines for regularizing the services of the Hand Pump Mistry and giving them pay scales. In compliance with the orders (Annexures 4 to 6) of Respondent No. 1, a subsequent order dated 31. 3. 1997 (Annexure 7), giving pay scale of Rs. 750-940 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1997, to the Hand Pump Mistry, as mentioned in Appendix `a', was issued by Respondent No. 4 - the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bichhiwara, District - Dungarpur. Thereafter, on completion of two years of service and on being found their work-performance satisfactory, Respondent No. 4 issued the order dated 31. 5. 1999 (Annexure 8), declaring the Hand Pump Mistry as permanent on their respective posts. In the meanwhile, the District Collector, Dungarpur - Respondent No. 2, vide his letter dated 1. 5. 2001, sent a report to the State Government mentioning therein that despite the ban for appointment imposed by the State Government, Respondent No. 4 the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bichhiwara, District - Dungarpur, called the candidates for interview vide his letter No. 3059 dated 29. 12. 1994 and by committing irregularities, gave illegal appointments to 27 Contract Hand Pump Mistries on 9. 1. 1995. Thereafter, in pursuance to the letter dated 1. 5. 2001 of the District Collector, Dungarpur, Respondent No. 1 issued the order dated 10. 7. 2001 (Annexure 9), directing the Concerned Authority to terminate the services of the Hand Pump Mistries, without any delay, who were given appointments during the ban- period.
(3.) THE petitioners - union submitted a detailed representation dated 1. 8. 2001 (Annexure 10) against the order (Annexure 9) of the State Government, which has not still been considered by the Respondents - Authorities. Hence, the petitioners - union has no alternative, except to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners- union, that the petitioners were called for interview, they were selected for the post of Hand Pump Mistry (Women), they were imparted adequate training for the prescribed period and, thereafter, they were given regular appointment by the Competent Authority of the State Government. Therefore, their services, as directed by Respondent No. 1, in the order dated 10. 7. 2001 (Annexure 9) cannot at all be terminated. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners - union that it was a regular selection, as, after completing the service for two years and on being fond their work-performance satisfactory, they were given regular pay scale by the Competent Authority. ;