S.Ali Ahmad, J.

1. These four writ applications have been heard together as the points involved in these cases are the same. Although the volume of the brief has been made frighteningly bulky by filing unnecessary supplementary-affidavits, counter-affidavits, etc. but learned Counsels for the parties during the course of argument did not rightly refer to the unnecessary and irrelevant details which were brought on record. 1 also, therefore, will refer only to such facts and documents which have been referred to by learned Counsels for the parties and which have relevancy to the facts in issue.

2. Before I take up the individual writ applications, it will be better to first determine the legality and scope of the three documents. The first is a Notification dated 3-3-1975 issued by the State Government paragraph 2 of which inter alia, says that if any teacher attached to medical college within the State is promoted to a higher rank and is posted to another medical college in the State and in case he does not join then his case for promotion will not be considered for another three years. The next document is a Notification dated 24-6-1982 issued by the State Government invit