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 therewith. In the second line, it was mentioned that all the employees appointed in this manner would be treated to have been relieved from the duty from the date of the order. Absolutely, no reason was mentioned in the termination order and no opportunity of hearing was provided. However, in the counter affidavit, excellent reasons have been provided. According to the allegations made in the first three writ petitions, advertisement for 12 clerks in the office in question was issued on 2.12.1991 and published in daily Hindi Newspaper ‘Dainik Jagaran’ on 5.12.1991. In the advertisement, it was provided that applications could be filed by 7.12.1991 and interview would be held on 23rd and 24th December, 1991. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued in the same newspaper on 11.1.1992 to the effect that interview, which was scheduled to be held on 23rd and 24th December, 1991, would be held on 13th and 14th January, 1992 in the office of District Development Officer, Maharajganj. Thereafter, it is alleged that interview was held on 13.1.1992. Appointment letters are Annexure-5. Appointment letters were issued by D.D.O., Maharajganj on 13.1.1992.

4. In W.P. Nos. 2167, 2168 and 5513, petitioners, who are 16 in total, claimed to have been appointed as clerk against advertisement on 13.1.1992. It has not been explained that how against 12 advertised posts, 16 persons could be appointed.

5. As absolutely no reason was given for cancelling the appointments, hence this Court had no option except to grant interim order in all the writ petitions.

6. In the counter affidavit, a horrible state of affairs has been disclosed. The appointments made were a fraud played by the then D.D.O., who was to retire on 31.1.1992. In the first advertisement, which was published in the newspaper on 5.12.1991, the last date for receipt of application was mentioned as 7.12.1991, i.e. only three days’ time was granted. The Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 399, Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin Society v. State of J. & K., has held that even one weeks time for applying is too short and arbitrary. Accordingly, D.M. through order dated 19.12.1991 directed that time to file applications should be extended till 30.12.1991, however D.D.O. did not comply with that and did not issue any corrigendum or second advertisement. Accordingly, D.M. through order dated 21.12.1991 cancelled the selection process. Copy of the said order is Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit.

7. The D.M. was away from the District from 10th to 18th January 1992. Taking advantage of his absence, D.D.O. issued fresh advertisement in the newspaper on 11.1.1992 stating that the interview which had been cancelled would be held on 13th and 14th January, 1992. It is also stated that Munsif City, Maharajganj through an interim order