JUDGMENT 1. By the Court -These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversy involved therein is identical. 2. The essential facts are that an advertisement was issued on 10th October, 1979 inviting applications for filling up eight posts in the Ministerial Staff in the Collectorate at Saharanpur. In pursuance of this advertisement the petitioners made applications and they were subsequently interviewed for the posts by the Selection Committee constituted under the U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. After the completion of the selection a select list was prepared on 6-4-1980 in which the petitioners' names also found place. Following the selection, letters of appointments were issued to the petitioners in April and May, 1980 in pursuance of which the petitioners were assigned work against the various posts in the Collectorate at Saharanpur. All of a sudden on 30th September, 1981 the petitioners were laid off. On enquiry the petitioners were told that their services were no longer required after 30th September, 1981. Further enquiries revealed that this action was taken by the respondent on the ground that the select list on the basis of which the petitioners were appointed had ceased to be operative with effect from 1-7-1980. Aggrieved by this action the petitioners have approached this Court. The reliefs claimed is that the respondents be restrained from making any selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15-1-1982 and that they be directed to take back the petitioners against the vacancies existing in the Collectorate at Saharanpur among Ministerial Staff. In the counter affidavit filed in opposition to the writ petitions the impugned action is sought to be supported on two grounds : firstly that the select list prepared on 6-4-1980 had in view of the aforesaid Rules and the Govt. Order no. 8.1.75 Karmik-2 dated 1-1-1981 and 8.45.75 Karmik-2 dated 5-10-1981 automatically lapsed on 30-6-80. Consequently the petitioners could found no claim on the basis of that select list after expiry of that date. Secondly, that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed were temporary and the same having been abolished they could not be continued in service in any view. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in either of these objections raised in the counter affidavit. Secondly, that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed were temporary and the same having been abolished they could not be continued in service in any view. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in either of these objections raised in the counter affidavit. We are clearly of the view that the petitioners having been selected and appointed in pursuance of the select list which was validly prepared and in operation at the time of selection and appointment their services could not be terminated merely on the ground that the select list had lapsed on 30-6-80. Even if it be assumed that the select list automatically lapsed on 30-6-80 as claimed in the counter affidavit, the appointment of the petitioners could not cease merely on the ground, unless the plea of the respondents that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed had ceased to exist is accepted. 4. We shall presently demonstrate that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed initially were not temporary posts. It is another matter, if we accept the version put forward in the counter affidavit, that though the posts were permanent, the vacancies against which the petitioners appointed were temporary. The plea raised in the counter affidavit is that the vacancies had arisen because permanent incumbents of those posts had to be drafted for census work temporarily. The plea put forward by the respondents is wholly untenable. Neither the letter of appointment nor the advertisement indicates that the proposed appointments were against any temporary posts. Letters of appointment are very clear on the point. They simply state that the petitioners have been appointed on the post like the Revenue Clerks, Arranger Record Room, etc. These are all permanent posts and undisputedly continuing. It is another matter that though the posts were permanent the vacancies against which the petitioners were appointed were temporary having arisen on account of the fact that the permanent incumbents of those posts had been drafted to do census work. 5. It will, therefore, be wholly incorrect to say that the petitioners were appointed against temporary posts which had ceased to exist. Indeed in the requisition sent by the Collector to the Employment Exchange Officer for forwarding the names for recruitment to these posts it has been categorically stated that the requisition is being sent for filling up eight permanent posts. 6. Indeed in the requisition sent by the Collector to the Employment Exchange Officer for forwarding the names for recruitment to these posts it has been categorically stated that the requisition is being sent for filling up eight permanent posts. 6. Further, even if the original vacancies against which the petitioners were appointed had ceased to exist there were still other vacancies available. It has been categorically averred in paragraphs 12 and 15 of the petitions that there are other vacancies against several posts of clerks in the office of the Collector, Saharanpur. These averments have not been refuted in the counter affidavit. If, therefore, there were vacancies existing and available in the Ministerial posts in the Collectorate at Saharanpur, the petitioners' employment could not be ceased merely because either the select list had lapsed or the posts against which the petitioners were initially appointed were no longer available because of the return of the permanent incumbents from the census work. It should not be forgotten that the petitioners were appointed after regular selection held in consonance with the rules of service. The petitioners were not ad hoc appointees but were selected for Ministerial posts in the Collectorate at Saharanpur in accordance with regular selections validly held under the aforesaid rules. If, therefore, vacancies were available at Collectorate against the class of posts for which the petitioners were recruited they had a right to continue in service. And as we have found above vacancies were available at the relevant time. The action taken by the respondents, therefore, in laying off the petitioners after 30-9-80 was clearly wrong and unsustainable. That being so, the petitioners are clearly entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petitions. 7. In the result, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The respondent no. 1 is directed to take back the petitioners in service against the Ministerial post in the Collectorate, Saharanpur. The petitioners shall also be entitled to continuity of service from October 1, 1981 with all consequential benefits. Petitions allowed.