( 1. ) PETITIONERS are foursome. They have joined hands to come to this Court with the common grievance. Indeed, they were given the final marching orders from the same Office on the same day, on 6-4-1986.

( 2. ) ALL of them sail in the same boat for several reasons. They are duly qualified to be appointed as Lower Division Clerks. They have all passed the Higher Secondary examination. Two petitioners - Brij Kishore Sharma and Avadh Kishore Dubey -have also passed Hindi Typing Examination. All of them, however, have been serving in the same Divisional Office of Public Works Department under the Executive Engineer, chambal Ayakat Circle, Gwalior. They started working respectively in the said Office on 1-2-1980, 1-2-1982, 1-6-1982 and 1-7-1982. These facts appear in Annexure P/2 which came to be forwarded by the second respondent, the Executive Engineer, aforesaid, with his letter dated 5-9-1985 to the Superintending Engineer of the same Department and Division. However, what further appears therein is also noteworthy. What duties the petitioners were severally discharging are also noted besides the remarks that their work was satisfactory. Two of the petitioners, namely, Brij Kishore Sharma and yogendra Singh Sikarwar, were serving respectively as Receipt Clerk and Despatch clerk, while the other two petitioners doing typing work.

( 3. ) IT is very unfortunate and indeed deplorable that in this Court when the petitioners came to join issue with the respondents, the factual position aforesaid, was sought to be denied in a very unholy and unbecoming manner, undeserving the respondents. They have endeavoured to deny the factual statements which were, made by the petitioners with respect to their service in para 1 of the petition though with great dexterity they have avoided to deny either the authenticity or the validity of Annexures p/1 and P/2 which were filed with the petition and reference to which was mentioned in para 2 of the petition in categorical terms. So much so that the petitioners have been charged with the theft of public record and violation of the provisions of the Official secret Act. This stand on the part of the respondents is wholly unsupportable. If petitioners have used Annexures P/1 and P/2 to pre-empt the respondents taking a false stand to deny the truth of the factual averments made in para 1 of their petition, we do not think, they have committed any sin. Indeed, it is not shown how official secrecy is violated merely because the petitioners are seeking this Courts assistance to enforce (heir fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Unfortunately for the respondents, the clever and dexterious drafting of the Return does not bale them out because of the specified averment which is to be read in a single sentence of para 1 - "the petitioners were appointed to whatever work they were required to do on the rates approved by the Commissioner for the daily rated workers". Indeed, the technical stand of the respondents in the Return as also in this Court through their counsel, has been that the petitioners were never "appointed" to do the clerical job in the Office of respondent No. 2. In the face of what appears in Annexures p/l and P/2, we are not at all convinced of the validity of the unlawful stand of the respondents which cannot be sustained on the basis merely of evasive denials even though repeated, times without number.

( 4. ) NOW, we may also look at some other documents filed in the case by the petitioners whose authenticity as well as validity also remains undisputed. Before we do so, we may shortly sum up the grievance that they were denied regular pay scale applicable in the case of Lower Division Clerks, having been appointed as casual labourers on muster roll and indeed, for that reason, they were given verbally the marching orders on 6-4-1986 after their last term of 89 days appointment made as per annexure P/9, expired. Indeed, this order even makes an