This order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No. 837/1997 (Pradhan Singh Bhadoriya v. M.P. Police Housing Corp. & ors.), 867/97 (Narendra Singh Verma v. M.P. Police Housing Corp. & ors.) and 844/1997 (Jayendra Singh Gaur v. M.P. Police Housing Corp. & ors.) as they are connected and involving common questions. Petitioner Awadesh Singh Kushwaha in W.P. No. 836/97 was appointed on the post of Electrical Sub-Engineer vide order dated 16.5.1994 Annexure P/4. Petitioner Pradhan Singh Rhadoriya was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer vide order dated 18.7.1994. Petitioner Jayendra Singh Gaur in W.P. 844/97 was appointed on the post of Work charged Sub-Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 15.3.1995. Petitioner Narendra Singh Verma was appointed as Sub-Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 18.1.1995. They were continued in their appointment for a fixed duration. The respondent No. 1 M.P. Police Housing Corporation has served similar notice upon the petitioners terminating their services by giving one month's notice. The petitioners have challenged this notice by way of these writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the termination of petitioners' services is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is sufficient work and requirement in the Corporation for the employment of the petitioners However, the Corporation and its employers have acted illegally and contrary to law. It is further contended that there is an abuse of process in appointment of ad hoc employees. Counsel for the respondents-Corporation filed return and contended that the petitioners have voluntarily entered into contract of employment on ad hoc basis. This contract provides that the services of petitioners could be terminated by giving one month's notice. It is further contended that the Corporation has to work under its constitution and has statutory limitations. It is further contended that the expenditure of the establishment was exceeding, therefore a decision has been taken to discontinue the surplus staff. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the Corporation has not acted malafide or contrary to law; the Corporation dealt the matters of all the employees similarly situated uniformly. Ultimately, it is contended that all the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners had made certain amendments and file documents and rejoinder. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the Corporation has not acted malafide or contrary to law; the Corporation dealt the matters of all the employees similarly situated uniformly. Ultimately, it is contended that all the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners had made certain amendments and file documents and rejoinder. Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, on the other hand filed copies of certain orders passed by this Court, namely in W.P. No. 2131/97 decided at the Main Seat on 14.7.1997, between Somnath Saha v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd., W.P. No. 2088/97 (Dharmendra Singh v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation & ors.) decided on 14.7.1997, and Division Bench decisions in L.P.A. 204/97 (Dharmendra Singh Tomar v. M. P. Police Housing Corp. & ors.) arising out of Single Bench decision in W.P. 2131/97 mentioned above, disposing of other connected L.P.A.S., L.P.A. No. 416/96 and L.P.A. No. 417/97 decided on 23.1.1999 at this Bench. A division Bench of this Court while deciding L.P.A. No. 204/1997 has taken note of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition in para 5 of the order, which is reproduced below -- "The petitions are, therefore, disposed of with directions to the respondent No. 1/M.P. Police Housing Corporation and the State of Madhya Pradesh in its Home Department to fill the available sanctioned posts of Sub-Engineers by duly advertising the posts and by granting opportunities to the petitioners and other competitors to apply for the posts. The respondents may also advertise the vacancies available in the reserved category in accordance with the standing instructions of the Government contained in the reservation roster. Until the regular procedure for recruitment to the existing sanctioned posts is followed, the respondents shall not fill any vacancy by only issuing call letters to the candidates including those from the reserved category. There shall be no order as to costs." A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 416/97 and L.P.A. No. 417/97 decided on 23.1.1999 had considered the entire material in detail. There shall be no order as to costs." A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 416/97 and L.P.A. No. 417/97 decided on 23.1.1999 had considered the entire material in detail. In L.P.A. No.417/97, while deciding the appeal, the Division Bench has taken note of the case of petitioner Jayendra Singh Gaur who is petitioner in W.P. No. 844/97 (respondent No.2 in the L.P.A.) and observed in para 9 as under :- "During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent-employer has brought on record an order dated 9.5.1997 whereunder the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated w.e.f. 8.6.1997. The various orders dispensing with the services of the Sub-Engineers, who stood at par with the petitioner have also been brought on record." Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating the appeals, observed in para 10 and 11 as under :- "10. From the evidence and material brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioner-appellant had accepted the appointment with the conditions imposed therein with his eyes wide open. Generally the principle 'last come first go' is extendable to the workmen employed in an industrial establishment falling within the purview of the industrial law. The petitioner who had been appointed in the time-scale of pay of Rs. 1600-2720 considering the nature of the duties attached to the office held by him, could not be deemed to be a workman as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further as noticed hereinabove, even that person, who was said to have been retained in service though junior to the petitioner is no longer in service from 8.6.1997. While it is true that an ad hoc employee should not be substituted by another ad hoc employee without there being any justifiable reason, such a situation does not appear to have arisen in the facts and circumstances of the present case, while could come to the rescue of the petitioner. 11. While it is true that an ad hoc employee should not be substituted by another ad hoc employee without there being any justifiable reason, such a situation does not appear to have arisen in the facts and circumstances of the present case, while could come to the rescue of the petitioner. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record and the implications arising under the decision rendered by the Division Bench in its decision in the case of Dharmendra Singh Tomar (supra), no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference in the impugned order." In view of the aforesaid decisions of Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court and considering the material brought on record, in the opinion of this Court there is no distinguishable feature in the present petition, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Lahoti, counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. 844 of 1997 submitted that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable. This Court while deciding L.P.A. No. 417/97 has also considered the case of the present petitioner, who was respondent No.2 in the L.P.A. and made certain observations, which are already recorded in para 7 of this order. Thus, the contention raised by Shri Lahoti has no force. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of Mirtal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise Meerut (1997) 1 SCC 203 to contend that a decision cannot be relied upon in support of proposition that it did not decide and is not binding. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. They also placed reliance on the cases of M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1990 SC 781 ), Raipur Ruda Meha v. State of Gujrat ( AIR 1980 SC 1707 ), Netram v. Jiwan Lal ( AIR 1963 SC 499 ) Jaisri v. Raj Devan ( AIR 1962 SC 83 ) and Prakash Chand v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1960 SC 195 ), in support of their contentions. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners. So far as the question involved in the present petitions is concerned, it has already been adjudicated finally by this Court in the cases referred above. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners. So far as the question involved in the present petitions is concerned, it has already been adjudicated finally by this Court in the cases referred above. This Court has considered the entire material brought on record and is of the opinion that no justifiable ground has been made out to take a contrary view. In view of the above discussions and the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 416/97 and L.P.A. No. 417/97 and L.P.A. No. 204/97 decided at the Main Seat, and considering the entire material brought on record, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is called for in these petitions. The petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.