JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 28-3-1990 (Annexure 8 to the petition) and the order dated 9-3-1990 (Annexure 11 to the petition) whereby their services were terminated by the respondents. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Work- Charge Supervisors against the vacancies of Junior Engineers in the Rural Engineering Department on ad hoc basis on 7-4-1986, 1-12-1987, 11-2-1988, 23-11-1987 and 17-1-1989 respectively. Whereas the services of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 were terminated on 30-3-1990 and 29-6-1990 respectively, the services of the remaining petitioners were terminated on 31-3-1990 It is stated in para 14 of the counter-affidavit that no more work was left to engage the petitioners and as the work was fully completed, the services of the petitioners were terminated. Annexure 1 to the second supplementary affidavit is a letter dated 2-5-1991 by the Director and Chief Engineer of Rural Engineering Services which was addressed to the Secretary of that department. In this letter, it is stated that there are 513 vacancies of Junior Engineers. By this letter, the Director impressed upon the Government to take necessary steps to fill up the vacancies in public interest at an early date. By the orders dated 25th September, 1991 and 9th October, 1991, learned Standing Counsel was directed to file supplementary counter-affidavit and also a reply to the Second Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners clearly stating whether vacancies of Junior Engineers exist and if so what is the nature of the vacancies either substantive or temporary. No supplementary counter-affidavit and no reply to the second supplementary affidavit of the petitioners has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel. Therefore, the averment of the petitioners that there are 513 vacancies of Junior Engineers, has not been controverted by the respondents in any way. This fact-situation runs counter to the averment made in para 14 of the counter-affidavit that the services of the petitioners were terminated when the work became complete and that the services were no longer required as no work was left to engage the petitioners. From the letter of the Director-Chief Engineer (Annexure 1 to the second supplementary affidavit), it is amply established that there are 513 vacancies of Junior Engineers and, therefore, the plea raised in the counter-affidavit that there is no work to continue the petitioners in service cannot be accepted. 3. From the letter of the Director-Chief Engineer (Annexure 1 to the second supplementary affidavit), it is amply established that there are 513 vacancies of Junior Engineers and, therefore, the plea raised in the counter-affidavit that there is no work to continue the petitioners in service cannot be accepted. 3. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioners were appointed in the vacancies of Junior Engineers and they were posted as Work Charge Supervisors on ad hoc basis because the vacancies of Junior Engineers were not filled in by the Commission. It is said that the vacancies of Junior Engineers are yet to be filled up by the Commission. The contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to continue in service until the vacancies of Junior Engineers are dully filled up by the Commission or if their services are regularised under the law. 4. I see force in the contention of the petitioners inasmuch as from the letter of the Director/Chief Engineer (Annexure 1 to the second supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners) it is established that there are 513 vacancies of Junior Engineers. From such vacancies an inference can be drawn that there is enough work in the department. Vacancies would not have existed if there was no work. Continuance of the vacancies implies availability of the work and, therefore, the respondents cannot raise the plea that the petitioners cannot be continued in service as there was no work. 5. On these facts, the petitioners are entitled to continue as the Work Charge Supervisors, so long as the vacancies of Junior Engineers are not filled up by the Commission or their services are not regularised under the Rules. 6. The writ petition is disposed of, the impugned orders dated 28th March, 1990 and 9th March, 1990 (Annexures 8 & 11 to the petition) are quashed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue as the Work-Charge Supervisors so long as the vacancies of the Junior Engineers are not filled up by the Commission. No order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order shall be issued to the petitioners within three days on payment of usual charges.