U.P.Singh, J.

1. The notification dated 5th November, 1983, issued by the Chief Engineer in the Department of Irrigation, Patna, terminating the services of the petitioners has been challenged in both the writ applications. Since the same impugned order has been challenged in both the applications and the questions of fact and law raised are common, they have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by this judgment. The petitioners have further prayed for a suitable direction to the respondents to absorb them permanently in the services of the Department of Irrigation.

2. The Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department being the proper appointing authority, appointed the petitioners some times, in the year 1979 and 1980 as muster roll workers in Classes III and IV posts in the Department of Irrigation. As such they satisfactorily worked till 18th May, 1982. As and when vacancy arose in the regular sanctioned permanent posts in Classes III and IV, the Chief Engineer appointed them in temporary capacity on such various posts of § peons, bill clerks, tracers, storekeepers, blue printers and Sweepers. This was so done on 18th May, 1983, by different notifications issued by the Department of irrigation and these appointments were made in consultation with and approval of the Department Establishment Committee. It has not been disputed that proper and competent authority to make these appointments on ail regular sanctioned permanent posts in Classes III and IV was the Chief Engineer of the Department (Respondent No. 4). These petitioners being Classes III and IV employees were earning a maximum salary of Rs. 460. Suddenly, by a notification No. 3486 issued by the Chief Engineer (respondent No. 4) on 5th November, 1983, the services of these petitioners were terminated with immediate effect.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by an Assistant of the Department of Irrigation, it was alleged that the appointments were made in contravention of the Government instructions. In other words, it has been stated that it the appointments of Classes III and IV employees in the regular establishment from outside had been strictly stopped vide circular letter No. 491 dated the 19th February, 1981, and 517 dated the 2nd April, 1983, specifically indicating that only those employees, who were working in the Work Charged Establishment, were to be adjusted against the vacancies in the regular Establishment. It was further alleged that, while making these appointments, the Chief Engineer neither followed these instructions nor did he follow the instruction of the Government dated 28th January, 1976. It was alleged (a) that the Chief Engineer did not call for the names in the prescribed pro forma from the Employment Exchange; (b) the merit list was not prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the school and college examinations; (c) the vacancies were not publicly announced and no advertisments were made; and (d) the policy regarding reservation, etc., was not followed. It was alleged that the petitioners, not being the Work Charged Employees, were not eligible to be appointed against vacant posts in the regular establishment by way of absorption. The petitioners were never appointed on ad hoc basis but purely on muster roll and that too in violation of the instructions. It was stated that their appointments on muster roll were illegal and irregular and, after an enquiry in relation to these appointments, their services terminated The recommendation of the Establishment Committee was also illegal and in violation of the Government instructions contained in Annoxures-B and C to the counter-affidavit.

4. Controverting these various allegations made in the counter-affidavit, the petitioners, in their reply, reiterated their stand that there was, in fact, no fresh appointment of petitioners on 18th May, 1983. They had already been appointed on muster roll in 1979-80 and on 18th May, 1983, as and when vacancies arose in the regular sancti