Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Fifteen petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the impugned orders of termination dated 18th July, 1992, Annexures 10 to 24 to the writ petition, passed by the Regional Ayurvedic & Unani Officer, Rampur terminating the petitioners on the ground that their services are no longer required and are terminated with immediate effect.

2. It is said that the petitioners were appointed on various dates between March, 1991 to March, 1992 as Class IV employee in the pay scale of 750-940 for a period of one year by the respondent No. 3. Some of the appointment letters have been filed as Annexures 1 to 9 to the writ petition. It is said that on and after 31st July, 1992, the respondent No. 3 stopped taking work from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders of termination, which are ex facie arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners came to know later on that the respondent No. 1 issued a Government Order dated 17th June, 1992 informing that the post of Junior Clerk are now included within the purview of U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission in view of U.P. Ayurvedic and Unani (Clerical Cadre) Service Rules, 1991 and hence the Government has imposed ban on ad hoc appointments. Besides, it says that there is no provision of ad hoc appointment under the rules therefore all ad hoc and daily wage appointments made by the then Director be cancelled. It is further said that in view of the Government decision, all ad hoc clerical appointments and daily wage appointments on class III and IV posts are being cancelled. To the same effect, the Government Order dated 18th June, 1992 was issued which was circulated to all the Officers by the respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 22nd July, 1992 and pursuant thereto the impugned orders have been passed.

3. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioners was made after making due selection in accordance with rules by the competent authority and therefore, the same could not have been cancelled by the respondent No. 3 under the dictates of the respondents No. 2 and 3 without applying his own mind and this vitiates the impugned orders of termination. Further the appointments of the petitioners were made against the newly created permanent posts, on which the petitioners were discharging their duties satisfactorily and that the impugned orders are punitive in nature and therefore, violative of Articles 14, 39A and 311 of the Constitution of India. Further neither the respondents have sought to remove the employees nor the posts on which the petitioners were appointed have been abolished and on the contrary the posts still exist, therefore termination of the petitioners without assigning any reason is arbitrary and discriminatory. No show cause notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioners which also vitiates the order. Further that one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof, as required under the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to “1975 Rules”, has not been provided hence also the impugned orders are vitiated in law. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no complaint against the working of the petitioners and therefore, also the impugned orders are vitiated in law.

4. Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate besides the above, also relied on two decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 34668 of 1992, Umesh Kumar v. Director Ayurvedik and Unani Service, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, decided on 11th February, 1998 and Writ Petition No. 24413 of 1992, Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11th February, 1998 and submitted that the persons similarly placed with the petitioners have been granted relief under the above two judgments therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the same relief. He also placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of Arun Kumar Rout v. State of Bihar and others, (1998) 9 SCC 71.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on