JUDGMENT 1. - Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions; therefore, they are being decided by a common order. 2. FACTS OF S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4349/90.The petitioner was given appointment as Class IV employee on the post of Sweeper vide order dated 19.8.1989 and his services were regularised w.e.f. 12.1.1990 by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.3.1990, attached as Annexure 1 with the writ petition. It is stated that even the period from 20.8.1989 to 11.1.1990 had also been regularised and the arrears of the salary as fixed in regular pay had also been paid. Vide order Annexure 2 dated 31.8.1990, the services of the petitioner had been terminated with immediate effect in pursuance of the order dated 4.8.1990. Being aggrieved against the order Annexure 2, the petitioner moved the present writ petition praying for quashing the order Annexure 2 for declaring the order of termination to be illegal and arbitrary. The respondents had filed the written statements. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as per Annexure R/1. It is stated in the written statements that the services of the petitioner were terminated because of the reason that his appointment was irregular on the ground that there was ban on the appointments. Because of the ban imposed by the Government, the petitioner was not likely to be given any appointment. It was further stated in the written statements that vide Circular dated 31.7.1989, the State Government had taken a decision to fill up the backlog in respect of the posts of SC/ST persons and, therefore, earlier ban imposed as on 31.3.1989 was lifted to complete the backlog in support of the said two classes. It is said that the appointing authority had made a mistake in appointing the petitioner; therefore, even if he has been regularised, his services were ordered to be terminated. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition had granted an interim order and the operation of the impugned order was stayed vide order dated 11.10.1990 which was later on confirmed on 12.3.1992, with the result that the petitioner is still continuing in the job. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition had granted an interim order and the operation of the impugned order was stayed vide order dated 11.10.1990 which was later on confirmed on 12.3.1992, with the result that the petitioner is still continuing in the job. Apart from the fact that there is no fault of the petitioner of his having been appointed to the Class IV employee on the post of Sweeper, a letter has been placed on record with the written statements as Annexure R/3 wherein the DIG, Police, Jaipur had recommended to the State to regularise the services of the employees belonging to SC/ST category. The petitioner is also a SC candidate. The petitioner's case did fall under the recruitment policy of filling up of backlog vacancies belonging to SC/ST category, therefore, his services could not be terminated. 4. FACTS OF S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4352/90.The petitioner was appointed as a Gardener, as Class IV employee by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara vide order dated 26.8.1989 (Annexure 1). He was regularised vide order dated 31.3.1990 (Annexure 2) by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara w.e.f. 12.1.1990. The petitioner was surprised to receive a letter dated 31.8.1990 whereby the services were terminated in compliance of the order of the State Government dated 4.8.1990 (Annexure 3). Being aggrieved against the order dated 4.8.1990, the petitioner filed this present writ petition, praying for quashing the order dated 4.8.1990 and for declaring the order of termination to be illegal and arbitrary. The respondents had filed the written statements. The facts in the written statements are admitted. 5. This Court while admitting the writ petition had granted the interim order and the operation of the impugned order was stayed vide order dated 11.10.1990 which was later on confirmed on 24.8.1993, with the result that the petitioner is still continuing the job. Apart from the fact that there is no fault of the petitioner of his having been appointed as Class IV employee on the post of Gardener, a letter has been placed on record with the written statements wherein the DIG, Police, Jaipur had recommended to the State to regularise the services of the employees belonging to SC/ST category. The petitioner is also a SC candidate. The petitioner's case did fall under the recruitment policy of filling up backlog vacancies belonging to SC/ST; therefore, his services could not be terminated. ORDER 6. The petitioner is also a SC candidate. The petitioner's case did fall under the recruitment policy of filling up backlog vacancies belonging to SC/ST; therefore, his services could not be terminated. ORDER 6. Apart from the above, the termination of the services of the petitioners was stayed and the petitioners are still in service. This Court in Chhoga Ram v. State, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1993/90 had given direction while disposing of the writ petition, that the services of the petitioner in that case shall not be terminated. The reasons given by the bother Judge, that no purpose would be served in deciding the case on merits because of the reason that the petitioner in that case, continuously held the post for more than six years. Similar directions have also been given in Ganpat Singh v. Nagaur Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., SBCW Ptn. No. 3761/91, decided on Dec. 9, 1996. 7. In view of the above, the order of termination is quashed, the petitioners shall continue to remain in service. The writ petition is, therefore, decided with the same relief as has been awarded by single Bench in the case of Chooga Ram (supra) and Ganpat Singh (supra). It is held that if the petitioner is in the employment of the respondents for the last more than six years, the respondents shall not terminate the services of the petitioners. If they are in employment and shall also consider the case for their regularisation as well. No costs.Order accordingly. *******