PER SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN, J. (ORAL) 1. By a common judgment dated 1.9.1998 the two writ petitioners of SWP No. 789/87 and SWP No. 790/87 have been given the relief after their order of termination dated 16.7,87 was quashed as under:- ".... As such order annexure C has been passed without application of mind. This order is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to hold the post of electrician. He would not entitled to any back wages as in these proceedings it is not possible to hold whether he was gainfully employed or not...." 2. This judgment and order is under challenge in these letter patent appeals. 3. Writ petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi was appointed as an attendant against the post of electrician and the other writ petitioner Nazir Ahmad Dar was also appointed as an attendant, class IV cadre, by respondent No 2 vide orders dated 11.4.1987 and 23.4.1987 respectively. Abdul Rashid Sofi. after his appointment, was deputed to ITI Srinagar for undergoing refresher training course for three months in electrician trade, whereas, Nazir Ahmad Dar was asked to attend the respondents units at Trial. However, on 16.7.1987 services of both the writ petitioners were terminated. The reason given was that the proposed plant of Animal Bi-product was not commissioned and that Abdul Rashid Sofi failed to produce certificate from ITI with respect to electrician trade. The learned Single Judge found that the reasons and basis for termination of the services of two petitioners were untenable and the whole assumption of respondents, the petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi was riot trained electrician is wholly wrong and that there was no such condition that the petitioners, who were appointed on regular basis, were to be continued in service in case the contemplated plant of Animal Bi-product was commissioned. Respondents having failed to rebut the cases, as made out by the petitioners, on record, the orders were held unsustainable. The impugned orders of termination were found to have been passed without application of mind and therefore, quashed. 4. The counsel Mr. M. Amin. Govt. Advocate, submits that the respondents were not given an opportunity to file counter, produce the record and put up their defence before the Court. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner Abdul Rashid Softs failure to produce ITI typing certificate has led to his termination. 4. The counsel Mr. M. Amin. Govt. Advocate, submits that the respondents were not given an opportunity to file counter, produce the record and put up their defence before the Court. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner Abdul Rashid Softs failure to produce ITI typing certificate has led to his termination. Though the non-commissioning of plant as an additional reason for termination of service of two writ petitioners has been mentioned, but same is not put forth as a ground warranting termination of service of the petitioners. 5. Examination of the writ record reveals that SWP No. 790/87 filed by Abdul Rashid Sofi was admitted to hearing on 19.2.1991 after the respondents had repeatedly failed to file objections and show cause against admission after motion stage notice on 7.9.87. Even so after admission rule was issued and respondents asked to file reply/counter. Yet respondents, despite appearance through the present counsel, repeatedly failed to file counter/reply till the matter was heard and decided on 1.9.1998. For over seven years, respondents took no steps to defend the case. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents were prevented from producing the record or placing their case at any point of time before the Court. The stand of respondents is not better in the other writ petition, SWP No. 789/87, filed by Nazir Ahmad Dar. Even after admission of this writ petition on 29.9.87, respondents have at no point of time taken any step whatsoever to defend the case, so much so, that even reply/counter has not been filed. No record has ever been produced before the Court. The contention of the appellant is baseless and wholly untenable. The learned Single Judge is justified in concluding on record that the reasons of plant, being non-functional and petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi having been not a trained electrician, is wholly wrong. These reasons for terminating the services of petitioners are on wrong assumption and without any basis. The termination orders suffer from non-application of mind and are passed in a casual manner. From facts and circumstances on record, the action of respondents, in terminating the appellants, can be fairly stated to be unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. The judgment and order in appeal is not shown vitiated on any ground. 6. In result, we find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.