Efficient court management, good administration, and the need for clear reasons for decisions were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

( 1 ) NO decision is approved for reporting (AFR) unless it decides an important question of law. However, this decision does not decide any question of law, much less an important question of law, it is merely an interim order. Then, why have I marked it AFR? Let me clarify, I have marked it AFR to emphasise :

(i) Court management, and (ii) Good administration.

( 2 ) EDISON.-YET to find suitable filament for incandescent bulb-was asked by his friends if he hadnt failed in his many attempts. no; he answered. i have found out what will not make good filament. Well, the controversy involved in these cases and the course charted by it in this Court tells us about Court management and good administration-how these two may not be practised. THE FACTS

( 3 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions were adhoc, or muster roll, or temporary, or work charge, or daily wage employees, of the Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow (the parishad) or the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti of different areas (the Samitees ). There is some difference in these five kinds of appointments. But nothing turns upon their distinction in these cases. For convenience, 1 will be using one word namely ad-hoc for all of them. The petitioners were appointed after 1. 4. 1996 without following the rules and regulations. These appointments were irregular. There were other employees similarly situate that is other ad-hoc employees whose appointments were also irregular. The State Government divided them into three groups ka", kha, and "ga" by a GO dated 12. 2. 1999 (the GO) and directed termination of services of all irregular appointments made between 1. 4. 1996 to 30. 10. 1997. This was to be done according to the procedure prescribed in that GO. Subsequently, the Parishad also resolved to follow it by its decision dated 3. 3. 1999.

( 4 ) THE Parishad or the Samittees, who in the first place had made the appointments, terminated the services of these persons, numbering more than thousand (the terminated employees), in pursuance of the aforesaid decision. They have also followed the procedure indicated in the GO and have offered retrenchment compensation.

( 5 ) THE terminated employees filed writ petitions. In some writ petitions, there was only one petitioner, in some, there were many. Some writ petitions were filed at Allahabad and some were filed at Lucknow. These writ petitions are for quashing :

* the direction of the State Government dated 12. 2,1999; * the decision of the Parishad dated 9. 3. 1999; * the termination orders passed by the Parishad or by the Samitee.

Though in many of them, relief in this form is not prayed for.

( 6 ) THESE writ petitions filed at Lucknow or Allahabad involved same points. Unfortunately they were taken up at different times, by different Judges, with different results. This has not only resulted into wastage of time but may have resulted in miscarriage of justice and bickering. The present seven writ petitions are the ones that could not be decided and have come up before me for decision. I am not sure if there are still few more. Before I deal with them, let us see how this controversy has been dealt by this Court. DECISIONS OF THIS COURT

( 7 ) SOME of these writ petitions came up before Justice D. K. Seth and were dismissed, One such writ petition is WP No. 11447 of 1999, Qmar Bishal Siddiqui v. Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi samiti. by a detailed and reasoned order. I understand special appeals are pending at the instance of private parties.

( 8 ) ONE writ petition came up before Justice V. M. Sahai in Mukesh Chcrnd case, Mukesh Chand v. State of U. P : 20 01 (1) ESC 558. and was allowed. The Court held that:

(i) The State Government has classified the terminated employees in three groups by the GO. The terminated employees falling in group ga are entitled for reinstatement till regular selections are made. But those in group ka or kha are not entitled to reinstatement. (ii) The terminated employees were em