ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR,J. - (1.) IN all these four writ petitions common questions of law and fact are involved therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Class IV (Sweeper) in the months of January and February, 1984. The appointments of these petitioners were sought to be cancelled vide the impugned orders on account of the fact that there was no vacancy in the scheduled castes quota. Aggrieved against this the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. Similar orders were quashed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1230/1984 and other similar writ petitions Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. by the order dated 1lth September, 1984. The petitioners in these writ petitions have submitted that number of persons were appointed from 31st January, 1984 to 10th February, 1984 and even thereafter they constitute one class and the respondent cannot pick and choose for cancellation of the appointments on the ground that these persons were appointed against the reserved quota whereas as per the roster system these appointments exceeded the reserved quota. In some what identical situation Hon'ble Agrawal, J. in the case of Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. mentioned above has already been quashed the termination order of the petitioner being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, on the ground that once the persons are appointed either against reserved castes or unreserved castes quota they form same class, therefore no distinction can be made.
(3.) IN view of the detailed reasons given by Hon'ble Agrawal, J. in the case of Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), all the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of termination are set aside. Mr. Dave Deputy Government Advocate has raised an objection that these writ petitions have been filed in the year 1985 and therefore they are belated and deserve to be dismissed. It is true that the writ petitions have been filed in the year 1985 but in view of the fact that in similar situation once the view has been taken by this court and quashed the termination orders then these writ petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. However, on account of this delay the petitioners will not be entitled to any back wages.;