( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. C. Raval for Mr. M. R. Anand Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. K. M. Patel, learned advocate on behalf the respondent.

( 2 ) IN the present case, the petitioners have challenged the order of termination passed by the respondent with a prayer to reinstate them with all consequential benefits along with back wages for the interim period. This Court has issued the rule on 6-12-1991 and the following order has been passed :"rule. Interim relief restraining the respondents from confirming the persons mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition and directing the respondent to give preference to petitioners as and when temporary and adhoc appointments are to be made to the post in question. It is also directed that the petitioners will be considered for the post in question for regular appointments if and when regular vacancies arise in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to the post in question. Liberty to the petitioners to join persons named in paragraphs 4 and 5 as party respondents. "

( 3 ) THE respondent has filed the affidavit-in-reply on 3-8-2000. Against that the rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner on 29-6-2001 and the additional affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent on27-12-2001. Thereafter, additional rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner on 20-3-2002.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the respondent Corporation is the State authority and services of the petitioners have been terminated while continuing the juniors. All the petitioners started their services in May, 1990 by the orders dated 4-5-1990. The appointments orders were issued in favour of the petitioners on temporary basis and for the fixed period. They have been continued by the periodical orders of extension of service. The services of the petitioners were terminated on 23-11-1990 on the ground that their services are not needed. The services of the petitioners were terminated without any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The nature of the work which was performed by the petitioners as delivery boy/packers. They have to fill the patrol in the vehicles coming to the patrol pump of the respondent. Their services were terminated without giving any reason in the termination order and without any justification by the respondent whether the juniors to the petitioners were continued in service even subsequently new employees on the same terms were employed on the same place of the respondent. According to the petitioners, Kishanbhai H. Solanki was recruited on 4-10-1990 and one Karshanbhai S. Vankar was recruited on 12-11-1990. Both these persons are continued when the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents. According to the petitioners, they are very hard workers and many times they were working upto 15/16 hours every day and still they are treated in this fashion and discriminated against the appointment order of Kishanbhai H. Solanki and Karshanbhai S. Vanker. The appointment orders of these persons will be produced by the petitioners at the time of hearing of the petition. According to the petitioners, they made a representation to the higher authority against the said termination. Meanwhile, one Hareshkumar Natvarlal Parekh was appointed in the petitioners post by the order dated 3-12-1990. Not only that one Bipinkumar D. Bhatt has been recruited on 16-7-1991. These all persons were directly recruited identically in the same manner as the petitioners were recruited by the respondent. Last person Shri Bhatt was even age bar but he was taken up while continuing the services of the petitioners and keeping silence about the representation of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the order of termination is illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. The order of termination is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the g