M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN these two writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) IN CWJC. No. 3174/96 (R) there are 18 petitioners who have sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.8.1996 issued by respondent No. 5, the Assistant Manager -Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., (for Short UCIL) whereby the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with after one month on the basis of the order dated 8.7.1996 passed by this Court in a writ petition being CWJC. No. 1486/95 (R) Prem Kumar Agnihotri v. UCIL. In CWJC. No. 1404/95 (R) the petition initially sought for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to absorb him in service on the post of Overseer -D but during the pendency of the writ petition by filing an amendment petition the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ for quashing the letter dated 1.1.1996 issued by the same respondent No. 5 terminating his services on the ground that his service was no more required. The facts in both the case are almost similar excepting some few facts which shall be stated hereinafter. The petitioners of CWJC. No. 3174/96 (R) were appointed in between 1987 -88 on the post of Overseer -D pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent after complying with the procedures and the recruitment rules. Although the period of three years expired sometime in 1991 but these petitioners were allowed to continue in service and their term of service was time to time extended by the Corporation. In 1994 the Corporation decided to absorb the petitioners along with others on permanent post and a letter to that effect was issued on 23.4.1994 calling upon these petitioners also for personal interview. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application. It appears that after the said interview no final order for absorption on the permanent post was issued but these petitioners were allowed to continue in service till 1996. All of a sudden the impugned letter dated 24.8.1996 was issued terminating the services of the petitioners in view of the order dated 8.7.1996 passed in CWJC No. 1386/95 (R).
(3.) IN CWJC No. 1404/95 (R) the petitioner was appointed in the same manner on the post of Overseer -D as against 29 posts advertised by the respondents vide advertisement dated 22.5.1990. Although the appointment was for a period of four years, the petitioner continued in service even after expiry of four years and in a similar way an interview letter dated 23.4.1994 was issued to him for his absorption on permanent post. Petitioners further case is that in 1993 he got an opportunity of appointment in other organization and, therefore, he sought recommendation of his application by the respondents which was not allowed. On the contrary, the petitioner was relieved for a few days from service and again he was re -appointed and, thereafter, continued in the said post till 1996 when the impugned order of termination dated 1.1.1996 was issued.;