( 1 ) ). The applicants in Civil Application No. 3052 of 1994 are working as clerks on vacant and permanent posts. They all belong to various scheduled tribes and they were appointed on posts which were meant for scheduled tribes candidates in the establishment under the District Judge of Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar the opponent herein. The applicants were allotted to work in two courts of Civil Judges (Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) both situated at Himmatnagar. They were so working from 26th August 1992 and were drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 950 Their names had been recommended by the employment exchange on the query from the office of the District Judge in that behalf and on their passing the necessary typing test and interview they had been appointed in those posts.

( 2 ) ). The opponent-District Judge decided to discharge them from their services with effect from 13-6-1994 (before office hours ). A combined office order dated 30-5-1994 was issued to that effect. The said order of termination was issued on account of transfer of the said two Judges outside the district and since there was no appointment of any other Judge in their place. The applicants filed Special Civil Application No. 7565 of 1994 to challenge the said order of termination. Various contentions were raised therein. the principal one amongst them being that since they belong to scheduled tribes before the termination of their services was effected it was necessary to examine whether the quota of scheduled tribes candidates in any way go affected because of their termination and they relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in R. K. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1422. The petition came to be considered by a learned single Judge of this Court who passed the following order on 9-6-1994. Rule. Ad interim relief in terms of para 7 (B)- 2 the prayer Clause 7 (B) sought the stay the operation implementation and execution of termination order dated 30-5-1994 which was to be effective from 13-6-1994. The aforesaid order was obtained without serving a copy thereof on the opponents and by requesting the learned Judge to pass an ex parte interim order inasmuch as there was urgency and urgent order was necessary to protect the petitioners which according to the petitioners was prima facie justified in the facts of the case.

( 3 ) ). The order of this court was served on the opponent on 10th June 1994 along with a copy of the petition. The opponent accepted the said order and the applicants continued to work in pursuance thereto. Strange enough on 21-12-1994 the applicants were served with an office order issued on the same day signed by the opponent informing them that the opponent had filed a civil application in Special Civil Application No. 7565 of 1994 for vacating the stay therein. The order further stated that the opponentlearned Judge had been informed by the Government Solicitor that the said civil application had been filed on 25th October 1994 after serving a copy thereof upon the petitioners advocate and since the same was not decided within fourteen days of filing the same the stay or injunction granted by the High Court earlier automatically stood vacated. The applicants therefore rushed to this Court and filed Civil Application No. 3052 of 1994 on 26 and prayed for a declaration that the opponent-Judges order dated 21-12-1994 is unauthorised and in violation of High Courts earlier ad interim order dated 9-6-1994 in Special Civil Application No. 7565 of 1994. The applicants also prayed for restoration of the status quo ante by prayer Clause 6 (B ). No reply has been filed by the learned District Judge to the civil application though an affidavit-in-reply has been filed to the main Special Civil Application No. 7565 of 1994 which is affirmed by one B. R. Valand clerk of the court.

( 4 ) ). The civil application filed by the learned District Judge though affirmed on 20-10-1994