Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are unusual cases. Neither appointments of the petitioners nor order of cancellation of appointment is in accordance with law. Accordingly, unusual relief has to be granted to the petitioners. In the first writ petition, there are six petitioners. In the second writ petition, there are nine petitioners. In the third writ petition, there is one petitioner. In the fourth writ petition, there are two petitioners. In the fifth writ petition, there is one petitioner. In the sixth writ petition, there are two petitioners. In the seventh writ petition, there are six petitioners.

3. Petitioners of W.P. Nos. 2167, 2168 and 5513 (first three writ petitions) were appointed as clerks by District Development Officer (D.D.O.), Maharajganj on 13.1.1992. All the appointments of class III & IV employees made in the office of District Development during last six months were cancelled by D.M. Maharajganj by order dated 16.1.1992 which is only of two lines. In the first line it was mentioned that all the appointments on classes III & IV posts in the office of District Development during last six months were cancelled therewi