The central legal point established is that termination orders issued without affording the affected parties an opportunity of hearing and without proper application of mind are illegal, invalid, and violative of principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties.

( 2 ) SINCE the common question of law is involved in these writ petitions, the same are being disposed off by a common judgment,

( 3 ) UNDER challenge are several orders Issued against the petitioners, terminating their temporary services from the post of Junior Clerks who were working in Regional District Offices and Audit offices of Cooperative Societies and Panchayats in U. P. The orders of termination have been issued by the Regional Audit Officers, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats in compliance of the directions issued by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats, U. P. , station Road, Lucknow vide order dated 12. 8. 1994. These orders of termination which were issued against the petitioners, terminating their services have been assailed in this bunch of writ petitions.

( 4 ) THIS Court while entertaining the writ petitions on 27. 9. 1994 had been pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order, dated 12. 8. 1994 passed by the Chief Audit Officer and panchayats, U. P. , directing the subordinate officers to terminate the services of temporary employees, petitioners. The operation of the resultant order of termination had been stayed by this Court and all the petitioners have continued in their services who were appointed between july-August, 1993 in the various regional offices of above mentioned department in U. P. All the petitioners are still in service and are being paid salary.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it emerges that several vacancies, posts of Junior Clerks were lying vacant in the offices of Regional Audit Officers, cooperative Societies and Panchayats in various regions of U. P. as well as in the offices of district Audit Officers, On the direction issued by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats, U. P. to fill up the posts, the Regional Audit Officers had made appointments on the post of Junior Clerks. Thus the petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks in the pay scale of rs. 950-1500 in stopgap/ad hoc arrangement during the period from July-August, 1993 to 18. 10:1993.

( 6 ) THE Regional Audit Officer is the appointing authority for the post of Junior Clerks in the regional offices. It is noteworthy that such appointments are made under Para-140, Part-I, Vol. 5 of Financial Handbook. The Para-140 provides that in case the departments or establishments are divided into grades, there is no objection to an excess appointment being made in lower grade against a vacancy lying unfilled in a higher grade. Para 140 further provides that this liberty must however not be used for the purpose of increasing numerical strength of an office. For each vacancy in higher grade only one extra appointment in a lower grade is admissible. Both the parties have submitted that posts of senior and junior clerks were lying unfilled in the regional offices. The Regional Audit Officers were competent to make temporary ad hoc/stopgap arrangement on the post of Junior Clerks. All the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc/stopgap temporary arrangement in view of the administrative exigencies prevailing in the regional offices/ district offices.

( 7 ) THE record further reveals that some complaints were made by Sri Putti Lal and Devendra asthana against these appointments. Directions were issued by the Minister and the Secretary of the concerned department to cancel these appointments and terminate the services of the petitioners. On the basis of these complaints, the services of the petitioners were terminated in compliance of the directions, dictated by the Chief Audit Officer on 12. 8. 1994. The petitioners have laid much stress on the fact that their appointments were cancelled on the ground of some complaints, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The prin