1. The petitioners who were admittedly appointed under particular schemes being aggrieved by discontinuation of their services, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court praying for absorbing them under any other schemes/projects. Both the writ petitions being based on, more or less, same set of facts and the relief prayed for being the same, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For determining the issue raised in the writ petitions, the respective pleadings of the parties in the first writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 10267/03, are discussed below. Be it stated here that learned counsel for the parties have also extensively argued on the basis of the facts in the said writ petition.

3. The petitioner was first appointed as Co-operative Education Instructor under the respondent No. 2 in the year 1979. There is no dispute that he was so appointed under a particular scheme implementation of which was vested with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner served in the aforesaid capacity in different offices. By Annexure-D letter dated 28/29.5.1985, the petitioner was intimated that his services under the scheme being only up to 31.3.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document