P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were by consent directed to be heard together because they raise the same points of controversy. There is a minor difference between them but that is not very material and I shall deal with that difference later on.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are drivers employed under the Durgapur Steel Project under the Hindusthan Steel Limited. The first petitioner in Rule No. 4052 of I960 was appointed on the 1st April, 1957 pursuant to an offer made on the 26th March. His services were terminated on the 20th June, 1959. He did not obtain the Rule until as late as 19th September, 1960. The petitioner in the other Rule, Bimal Chandra Majumdar was appointed on the 21st September, 1957 on an offer made on the llth September 1957. His services were terminated on the 14th April, 1959. He did not obtain this Rule until 17th January, 1s61. Delay has been urged as a ground in both the cases on which it has been contended that the applications must be dismissed and the Rules must be discharged.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, Verghese, in Rule No, 40. 52 of 1961 was only a temporary driver. The offer which the General