( 1 ) AS these two petitions arise out of identical facts and involve common questions, they are being decided by this common order. The arguments were heard in part on 17-2-1995. Thereafter the case was taken up on different dales, but till date no reply to these writ petitions is filed. Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that there are number of other identical petitions which have already been decided by this Court on 17-6-1995, and the main petition was special Civil Application No. 2929/94 in which a detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the Board, and as such to avoid unnecessary repetition of the reply he prays that that reply be treated as reply to these petitions. I called for the file of special Civil Application No. 9299/94, and have gone through the contents of the said writ petition as well as the order passed in that writ petition, and cognate matters. I am satisfied that these are identical matters. In view of these facts the prayer which has been made by Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents, is accepted and the reply filed by him in Special Civil Application no. 9229/94 is treated as reply to these writ petitions.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of these petitions as alleged therein by the petitioners are as follows: sca 8369/94 : in all four petitioners are there in this writ petition. The petitioners were appointed by order dated 12-2-1993 by respondent No. 1 as sweeper/peon/pagi (watchman) in the pay-scale of Rs. 750- 900 with effect from 13-2-1993 with dearness allowance, house rent allowance, compensatory local allowance, medical allowance, etc. on probation for one year on temporary basis. The appointment has been specifically for a period of one year with specific condition that their services are likely to be terminated at any time without any notice. Copy of the appointment order has been filed along with the writ petition and the respondents have also furnished English translation thereof. The petitioners having conie to know that there were vacant posts, had given their applications and on the basis of the applications they were appointed on the posts by respondent No. 1. The petitioners stated that since last many years respondent No. 1 used to make appointment on that basis, i. e. on the basis of applications. Some persons had filed writ petition before this High Court being Special Civil Application No. 7907 of 1993 on the ground that appointment of the petitioners and other 31 employees on the posts are contrary to the provisions of the Act. In the said petition this Court had issued notice. The petitioners have come up with the case that though the aforesaid writ petition is not finally disposed of by this Court, to the utter surprise of the petitioners, respondents made attempt to terminate the services of the petitioners. The termination of service is sought to be made on the ground that their appointments were not made by following the proper procedure. Having apprehension of termination of their services the petitioners, along with other employees similarly situated, filed civil suit in the Civil Court at Baroda being regular Civil Suit No. 1425 of 1993. In the said suit the petitioners and other plaintiffs had prayed for interim injunction. The application for interim relief filed by the petitioners in the aforesaid suit came to be rejected by the trial Court on 31-12-1993. The petitioners have stated that against the order of the Civil Court rejecting the application for interim injunction they had not preferred any appeal. The petitioners have come up with the case that rest of the plaintiffs in the suit had filed appeal against the order of rejection of the application for injunction and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the matter was taken to this court by those persons by filing civil revision application, but that too has been dismissed. In these backgrounds the petitioners state that since the petitioners