V.K.Khanna, C.J.— These writ appeals have been filed by the Assam State Electricity Board against the workmen who had filed the aforementioned Civil Rules challenging the orders terminating their services. Counsel appearing in all the appeals are the same. Mr. NN Saikia, Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. RK Jaitly, Mr. J. Chutia and Ms. G. Deka, Standing Counsel, has appeared for the Assam State Electricity Board (for brevity ASEB), and Mr. C. Baruah, assisted by Mr. SK Kejriwal and Mr. NK Baruah, has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent writ petitioners. 2. The present writ appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as the questions raised in all the appeals are indentically the same. 3. The brief facts for the purposes of adjudication of these appeals are that admittedly the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents in all the appeals had been employed/appointed on 3.8.88 and had continued in services of the ASEB till their services were terminated by independent orders dated 3.5.94. The aforesaid orders of termination passed against the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents have been quashed by the learned Single Judge by recording finding that all the workmen were not employed as casual workmen but were appointed against the vacant posts and thus they could not be called casual workmen as was being alleged by the ASEB. 4. Learned Single Judge has also recorded finding to the effect that all the workmen had worked for more than 240 days, and therefore, in accordance with its own circular, issued by the ASEB on 13th April, 1987, they were entitled to be regularised in their services. It is after recording this finding that the termination orders dated 3.5.94 have been quashed and the appellants in these appeals have been directed to regularise the services of the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents. It is this common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in aforementioned Civil Rules which has been challenged by the ASEB-appellant as being not in accordance with law, as according to them under the terms of the contract and also according to the provisions of the Regulations framed under section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, services of the writ petitioners/respondents could be terminated. 5. After hearing Mr. 5. After hearing Mr. NN Saikia, Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the ASEB-appellant at some length, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any error requiring interference in these appeals. 6. The first question which has been urged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (ASEB) is that the appointments of the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents were illegal as they wece made in contravention of the specific direction issued by the ASEB placing a ban that no appointment should be made and thus the appointments of the workmen concerned in the year 1988 were invalid as the aforesaid ban had been imposed by the ASEB as far back as 1987. 7. It has not been disputed before us that all the workmen had been appointed on 3rd August, 1988. It is clear from the record that the appointment orders have been made for practically continuous period since then. Even according to Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the ASEB, there may have more than 10 appointment letters issued by the ASEB till the impugned orders terminating the services of all the workmen concerned were issued on 3rd May, 1994. 8. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the workmen had been allowed to continue on their posts by the ASEB for about 6 years by means of issuance of various appointment orders from time to time. These workmen-writ petitioners/respondents had been serving the ASEB for a period of more than six years. Mr. Saikia has not been able to show as to whether there is any specific qualifications which have been laid down by the ASEB for appointment on the posts which the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents were holding, except the rider of age at which a workman may be recruited by the ASEB. Mr. Saikia has not been able to show as to whether there is any specific qualifications which have been laid down by the ASEB for appointment on the posts which the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents were holding, except the rider of age at which a workman may be recruited by the ASEB. Learned Single Judge has, in our opinion, rightly recorded the finding that the appointment letters had been rightly made and could not be challenged in exercise of this Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.' We are also of the opinion that the ASEB had allowed these workmen-writ petitioners/ respondents to work for a period of six years by issuing continuous appointment letters from time to time and thus the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appointment letters are valid, in our opinion, is correct and is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of this Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution after a lapse of six years. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the ASEB Mr. Saikia has also not been able to show to us as to how the finding of the learned Single Judge that the workmen concerned are not casual, is not correct. The appointment letters themselves show that the appointments of all the workmen concerned were being made on regular vacant posts. The concerned workmen had been allowed to work on those posts for a period of about six years. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination their appointments can be termed as casual appointments and the finding on this score recorded by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is correct. 10. The last question which arises for determination before us is as to whether the direction given by the learned Single Judge regarding regularisation of the services of the workmen concerned is correct or not. It has not been disputed by Mr. Saikia, counsel appearing for the ASEB that the office memorandum issued by the Chairman of the ASEB dated 13th April, 1987 is still in operation. A bare reading of the said office memorandum makes it clear that it is the policy of the Board itself to regularise the employees who have completed 240 days' work or more without break. Saikia, counsel appearing for the ASEB that the office memorandum issued by the Chairman of the ASEB dated 13th April, 1987 is still in operation. A bare reading of the said office memorandum makes it clear that it is the policy of the Board itself to regularise the employees who have completed 240 days' work or more without break. If that be so, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for regularisation of the services of the workmen-writ petitioners/respondents in these appeals cannot be said to be suffering from any vice requiring interference by this Court 11. Before parting with the record, it may be observed that Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the ASEB-appellant has strenuously urged before us that the ASEB is over-staffed and for that reason it has been suffering hugenesses and for the viable working of the ASEB it has become necessary to dispense ,with the services of some employees who are in surplus and not require for performing the jobs undertaken by the ASEB. In our opinion, as far as this question is concerned, the same is not subject matter of adjudication by this Court. However, in case the ASEB has to undertake dispensation of the services of some of its employees on the aforesaid ground, the same can only be done by following certain well established principles -one of the well established principles in such a situation is that services of employees will be terminated only after following the principle of 'last come first go' and also after following other provisions of law. 12. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the judgment dated 8.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned Civil Rules out of which these appeals arise cannot be said to be suffering from any error requiring interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 12A. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeals are hereby dismissed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties shall bear their own costs.