ORDER : This writ application by fourteen applicants is directed against the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners and in not reinstating them The writ petitioner nos. 4, 11 and 13 were appointed as daily rated peons and other writ petitioners were appointed as daily rated clerks between September, 1976 and November 1976 by the District Judge, 24-Parganas and were posted in the various subordinate courts within 24-Parganas. On 7th October 1977, an order was issued by the Assistant Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, terminating the services of 35 persons including the writ petitioners who had been performing clerical duties or duties of peon as the case may be. The said order of termination became effective from 10th October 1077. 2. The petitioners made a representation to the Judicial Minister on 3rd November 1977 and requested him to withdraw the notice of termination of the services of the petitioners. The petitioners after their appointment in 1976 worked for more than 280 days. On 21st November 1977, the petitioners made representation to the District Judge, 24 Parganas and requested him to withdraw the retrenchment notice and reinstate them By a letter dated 9th February 1978, the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department. Government of West Bengal requested the District Judge, 24 Parganas to send the names and particulars of the daily rated retrenched workers to the Surplus Pool of the Finance Department The petitioners received ex-gratia payment of Rs 100/- each in terms of Memo no. 1766 J dated 9.2.1978 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department to the District Judge, 24- Parganas. Thereafter on 16th February, 1978, the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department in his Memo 2127-J communicated to the District Judge, 24-Pargans that the letter dated 9.2.1978 asking for the particulars of the daily rated retrenched workers need not be given effect to. Thereafter on 26th November 1978, the petitioners made a representation to the Judicial Minister, West Bengal. Similar representations were also made by the petitioners to the Chief Minister, West Bengal. On 18th March 1980 further representation were made by the writ petitioners to the Chief Minister, West Bengal. The petitioners did not receive any favourable reply to their representations. On 12th September 1980 and 28th September 1982 the petitioner made representations to the Joint Secretary, Labour Department. On 18th March 1980 further representation were made by the writ petitioners to the Chief Minister, West Bengal. The petitioners did not receive any favourable reply to their representations. On 12th September 1980 and 28th September 1982 the petitioner made representations to the Joint Secretary, Labour Department. On 22nd September 1982, the petitioner made representation to the District Judge and on 13th October, 1982, the petitioner made further representation for their absorption or reinstatement, but without any success. On 22nd November, 1982 the petitioners made a representation to the Judicial Minister, Government of West Bengal. In the said representation it was submitted by the petitioners that in the Directorate of Irrigation & Waterways the persons who rendered service over 280 days were made regular employees under the Labour Department vide Memo dated 17.10.1977 and as such the petitioner who also worked more than 280 days as the daily rated clerks or peons as the case may be should have made regular and they should not have been retrenched. Further representations were made by the petitioner on the 18th December 1982 to the Judicial Minister drawing his attention that the writ petitioners were starving as they were unemployed since 1977. It is alleged that the Judicial Minster assured that the cases of the writ petitioners would be placed before the Cabinet, so that they can be reinstated. On 15th March, 1983, the Cabinet meeting was held and the question of reinstatement of the petitioners was placed before the Cabinet under file No. JIE -142/77. It was alleged that the Cabinet asked the concerned department to answer three points, viz.-(1) whether their appointments were correct and usual? (b) whether 56 persons out of 128 persons were absorbed in regular post as usual? (c) date of termination and on what ground they were terminated? 3. It apears that the Joint Secretary, Labour Department, answered the questions (a) and (b) in the affirmative Strangely enough, the Assistant Secretary, Lahour Department stated in reply to question (c) that the Labour Department cannot agree with the proposal of reinstatement of daily rated workers It is alleged that the writ petitioners came to know that the Assistant Secretary made the aforesaid comment without answering the point under (c) above, although specifically directed by the Cabinet The writ petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 met the said Assistant Secretary and requested him to reconsider his note Since the petitioners' grievances have not been redressed by the authorities concerned the petitioners moved this Court on 4th October 1983 G. N. Ray, J issued Rule nisi and an interim order was passed to the effect that if any appointment is made on the basis of the requisition made by the District Judge, such appointment will be made on an ad hoc basis and will abide by the result of the Rule. 4. An affidavit-in opposition has been filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal affirmed by on Keshab Chadra Mukherjee, Assistant Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that the petitioners were not appointed in any post sanctioned by the Government and as a such their appointments were irregular. Accordingly, the Government directed the District Judge to terminate their services It has been further stated that initial appointments of the petitioners being irregular, the request of the Deputy Secretary for sending the names etc of the daily rated retrenched workers to the Surplus Pool of Finance Department was issued through inadvertence and mistake and was therefore withdrawn, It is also stated that since the appointments of the petitioners were irregular they have not asked for reinstatement but they have asked for that their names should be sent to the Surplus Pool. 5. Mr. Dipak Kumar Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders of termination of services of the petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and cannot be sustained inasmuch as no reason whatsoever was assigned The petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before their services were terminated and accordingly the same is violative of principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that since the petitioners were in continuous employment for more than 280 days, the authorities are bound to absorb them in their regular establishment. It is the contention of Mr. He has further submitted that since the petitioners were in continuous employment for more than 280 days, the authorities are bound to absorb them in their regular establishment. It is the contention of Mr. Banerjee that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 have been infringed inasmuch the petitioners ale similarly situated with other casual workers who worked more than 280 days and although in other cases such casual workers had been regular, the petitioners' service have been terminated It is also contended that initial appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to he irregular as the appointment was made after complying with the necessary formalities. 6. Mr. Amar Nath Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated what has been stated in the affidavit in opposition It is his submission that since the initial appointments are irregular, the question of reinstatement of the petitioners did not arise That is why the names of the petitioners were not forwarded to the Surplus Pool of the Finance Department He, therefore, submits that the Rule should be discharged. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the respondents that the initial appointment of the writ petitioners is irregular cannot be accepted. The petitioners were interviewed by a Selection Board consisting, inter alia, of Mr. R. C. Ghosh, the then Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24- Parganas, Mr. S. Bose, the then Registrar of Alipore, 24-Parganas and Mr. R.L. Mukherjee, the then Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24Parganas. The petitioners were selected by the Selection Board on merits No material has been placed before me to substantiate the contention that the initial appointments of the petitioners were irregular. The contention of the respondents is also contrary to the evidence on record. Out of 126 daily rated employees, 56 were absorbed in regular posts The said 56 persons were appointed in the same manner as the writ petitioners were appointed. By Order No. 368-M dated 2.11.76, one Gour Chandra Mondal and Debesh Chandra Rath were also appointed along with the petitioner no. 4 The said Gour Chandra Mondal and Debesh Chandra Rath were absorbed in regular posts and are still working. Thus the contention that the initial appointments of the petitioners were irregular is not correct. By Order No. 368-M dated 2.11.76, one Gour Chandra Mondal and Debesh Chandra Rath were also appointed along with the petitioner no. 4 The said Gour Chandra Mondal and Debesh Chandra Rath were absorbed in regular posts and are still working. Thus the contention that the initial appointments of the petitioners were irregular is not correct. If it is irregular in respect of writ petitioners then it should have been also irregular in so far as Sri Gour Chandra Mandal and Sri Debesh Chandra Rath fire concerned. It is not known what principles or on what basis it has been contended that the initial appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to Satisfy this Court with any material to justify the stand taken in the affidavit that the petitioners' appointment were irregular. When appointments were made after the candidates have been selected by duly constituted Selection Board, it cannot be urged that such appointment is irregular It is also beyond comprehension how could appointment made in two cases be valid and others invalid, although all were selected by the same Selection Board. 8. The contention of the petitioners that there has been discrimination in this case has substance. Not only that some of the persons appointed along with petitioners as daily rated workers were made regular, but even though the petitioners completed more than 280 days, they were not absorbed in the regular establishment under the Government. It has not been disputed that under the relevant rules, a Casual Labour or daily rated worker who has served continuously for more than 280 days is entitled to be absorbed in a regular post. There is no dispute in this case that the writ petitioners have rendered services continously for more than 280 days before their services were terminated. Thus they have acquired a right for being absorbed in the regular posts in the State Government. The allegations that in all other department, such casual employees were regularised have not been denied. The respondents should have considered the case of the petitioners for permanent absorption in regular establishment. 9. Thus they have acquired a right for being absorbed in the regular posts in the State Government. The allegations that in all other department, such casual employees were regularised have not been denied. The respondents should have considered the case of the petitioners for permanent absorption in regular establishment. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case as indicated earlier, I am inclined to hold that initial appointments of the writ petitioners were not irregular and their appointments ought to have been regularised in terms of the relevant rules having regard to the fact that they served continuously for more than 280 days after their appointment in 1976 It is true that in a purely temporary appointment termination may be made by the Government without giving any opportunity of being heard. But where the allegations are that the initial appointments were irregular and that is why the services are terminated, in such a case the affected persons have a right to make a representation that their initial appointment were neither illegal nor irregular and that they have acquired the right to continue in the employment. Such representation cannot be made unless opportunity of hearing is given to the persons to be affected by the order of termination. This opportunity was not given. The petitioners' services were terminated on 3 days' notice without assigning any reason. In this case the respondents have adopted a policy of pick and choose. The action of the respondents in this case, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, this Rule succeeds. The impugned order of termination of the services of the writ petitioners are quashed and set aside. Let appropriate writ be issued. 11. The question still remains what relief the petitioners are entitled to get at this stage. I am told that there are immediate vacancies under the District Judge, 24-Parganas of 8 clerks and 6 peons. After the Rule was issued and interim order was passed, 8 clerks were appointed, but such appointment were ad hoc appointments subject to the result of the Rule. However, at this stage, those persons who were appointed, even though on ad hoc basis, should not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The respondents are directed to forthwith give appointment to the writ petitioners who can be absorbed in the immediate vacancies. Let the remaining writ petitioners be given ad-hoc appointment until further vacancies occur. However, at this stage, those persons who were appointed, even though on ad hoc basis, should not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The respondents are directed to forthwith give appointment to the writ petitioners who can be absorbed in the immediate vacancies. Let the remaining writ petitioners be given ad-hoc appointment until further vacancies occur. No further vacancies either in the post of Clerks or Peons should be filled up without first providing the remaining writ petitioners. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that the writ petitioners should get the benefit of their seniority and other benefits since the order of termination is being set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly having regard to the petitioners moved this Court on 4th October 1983, I direct the respondents to pay the writ petitioners their salary, as would have been payable to them had not their service, been terminated, from October 1983. The writ petitioners will also haw their seniority counted form 4th October 1983 when they moved this Court. 12. Let a plain copy of this order, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned Advocate for the parties. Rule made absolute; direction given.