Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 411 (PAT)

Jagdish Prasad Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2001-05-07

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. All these writ applications involve common issues of law and facts and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The challenge by the petitioners to orders of termination of their services passed by a common set of respondents raises a vexatious question as to validity of regularisation of adhocldaily wage employees and issues of equity due to long lapse of time since initial appointment and regularisation. 2. Before noticing the common features and admitted facts in these cases it will be useful to notice the details of appointment of individual petitioners in the service of Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The sole petitioner in CWJC no. 1118/2001 was appointed on 4.9.1981 on the post of Field Officer, on adhoc basis for six months. The tenure of such adhoc service was extended from time to time and his service was regularised on 6,10.1987 w.e.f. 1.2.1987. The sole petitioner in CWJC no. 1120/2001 was appointed as an Assistant on daily wages on 4.9.1981. He continued as such till his service was regularised vide order dated 18.4.1987 w.e.f. 1.2.1987. His termination is on additional ground that he was overage by about one year and four months. Petitioner in CWJC no. 1371/2001 was initially appointed as a Typist on 3.5.1976 for a period of six months on purely temporary basis. He was re-appointed on daily wages on 17.9.1980 and thereafter appointed in regular pay scale of Assistant, on temporary basis on 31.12.1982. In their counter-affidavit the respondents have treated the date of appointment of this petitioner as 3.12.1982. His termination is also for an additional ground that he was overage by about seven years in December, 1982. In CWJC no. 1634/2001 there are three petitioners who were appointed as Field Officers on adhoc basis on 1.9.1981 2.5.1981 and 7.5.1981 respectively. They continued in service as such adhoc employees til! their services were regularised by order dated 6.10.1987 w.e.f. 1.2.1987. In their cases also the termination is on additional ground that they were overage by one month eleven days, three months six days and three days respectively. In CWJC no. 2059 of 2001 the petitioner was appointed as Field Officer on adhoc basis on 4.9.1981. The initial period of six months was extended til! his service was regularised on 6.10.87 w.e.f. 1.2.1987. In CWJC no. In CWJC no. 2059 of 2001 the petitioner was appointed as Field Officer on adhoc basis on 4.9.1981. The initial period of six months was extended til! his service was regularised on 6.10.87 w.e.f. 1.2.1987. In CWJC no. 3573/2001 the sole petitioner was similarly appointed on the post of Field officer on adhoc basis for an initial period of six months on 24.8.1981. His service was also extended from time to time till he was regularised vide order dated 6.10.1987 w.e.f. 1.2.1987. His termination order also mentions, as an additional ground for termination that he was overage by 7 years, 5 months and 21 days. 3. Besides the ground of overage with regard to some of the petitioners as noticed earlier, the termination orders proceed on common facts and contain two common grounds for termination of petitioners service, namely, (1) at the time of appointment there was a ban on appointment imposed by the State Government and (2) while making the appointment the prescribed procedures of appointment, viz, advertisement/reservation etc. were not followed. Mainly on these two common grounds the appointments were treated to be irregular leading to termination of petitioners services. 4. The common facts which for the sake of convenience have been taken mainly from the records of CWJC no. 1118/2001 disclose that the Bank was established in the year, 1957 as a Society registered under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Initially the name of the Society was Bihar State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Patna which was subsequently changed to its present nomenclature. The Bank is governed by its Bye Laws and the relevant provisions of the Act. Under the Bye Laws the Registrar, Co-operative Societies or a person especially appointed by the State Government shall be the trustee for certain purposes specified in the Bye Laws mainly relating to the fiscal business of the Bank. The Board of Directors or the Board has been vested with powers under the Bye Laws and such powers include the power to regulate, from time to time the strength of Bank staff and their salaries, allowances and service conditions. The Board also has the power to appoint, suspend, remove and exercise disciplinary control over officers and staff of the Bank in accordance with rules of business framed by the Bank with the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Board also has the power to appoint, suspend, remove and exercise disciplinary control over officers and staff of the Bank in accordance with rules of business framed by the Bank with the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Bank framed rules for direct recruitment to the cadre of peon/LDC/Supervisor etc. and those rules were approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar in June, 1970 as appears from Annexure-2 to the writ application. 5. Vide letter dated 10.8.1976 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies directed all the Co-operative Societies of the State of Bihar not to make new appointments or give promotions to their employees until procedure in this regard could be finalised by the State Government. 6. According to the petitioners the ban on appointment/promotion imposed by the Registrar was not applicable to the Bank because its recruitment rules had already been approved by the Registrar. However, the Bank felt necessity of further recruitment of employees on the ground of opening of new branches in different parts of the State during the years 1976-1982 and hence on 8.1.1981 the Board of the Bank resolved to request the Government to lift the ban and further resolved to engage persons on ad hocldaily wage basis to meet the exigency of work. For the said purpose the service-cum-appointment committee was also constituted by the Board and in that meeting of the Board the Secretary of Cooperative department, Government of Bihar took part as representative of the Government. The committee held its meeting on 15.3.1981 and decided to engage Field Officers and Accountants on ad hoc basis. Most of the petitioners were appointed pursuant to said decision on temporary/ad hoc basis. The State Government vide letter dated 29.9.81 (Annexure-4) lifted the ban with regard to Bank on certain conditions. 7. It is admitted that on 4.10.1985 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar approved a draft of staffing pattern and a number of new posts were sanctioned as per demand of the Bank. A meeting of the service-cum-appointment committee was held on 30.11.1986 followed by a meeting of the Board of Directors on 4.12.1986. The Board decided to regularise the service of employees who were appointed on daily wage/ad hoc basis. Boards resolution dated 4.12.1986 (Annexure-6) discloses that an explicit decision was taken that in the matter of regularisation the rules relating to reservation shall not be followed. The Board decided to regularise the service of employees who were appointed on daily wage/ad hoc basis. Boards resolution dated 4.12.1986 (Annexure-6) discloses that an explicit decision was taken that in the matter of regularisation the rules relating to reservation shall not be followed. The Board decided that the rules of reservation and prescribed procedure of appointments shall be strictly followed in future appointments. By different office orders petitioners services were regularised in the light of aforesaid resolution of the Board of Directors dated 4.12.1986. This meeting was attended by Shri Mahendra Singh, Secretary, Co-operative Dept. Govt. of Bihar. 8. It is also not in dispute that after the ban on appointment was lifted with regard to Bank vide letter dated 29.9.1981, an advertisement for regular appointments was published in the Month of August, 1982 but this exercise was subsequently abandoned. The Bank resorted to further appointments of ad hocldaily wage basis. On receiving complaints about irregular appointments made in the Bank the State Government constituted a two members enquiry committee consisting of Shri Mahendra Singh, Commissioner-curn-Secretary Co- operative Department, Govt of Bihar and Smt S. Jalja, Additional Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept., Govt of Bihar. This committee enquired into appointments made between 29.9.1981 and 1984 and found appointments made on ad hoc/dai!y wage basis to be irregular and recommended for their cancellation vide its report dated 14.3.1984. It also recommended for cancellation of the advertisement for regular appointment issued in the year, 1982 because of irregularity in receiving the applications and in maintaining the record thereof. 9. Petitioners have pleaded and respondents have not disputed that the Chairman of the Bank vide order dated 3.4.1984 and 6.8.1986 retrenched such employees appointed after August, 1982 but due to intervention of this court in various writ applications, their retrenchment was quashed and their services were regularised. 10. Acting on one of the recommendations of the aforesaid two members committee the State Government constituted vide order dated 2.7.1992 another high level enquiry committee consisting of three members to enquire in respect of appointments made in the Bank between August, 1976 to 1980 and between 1985 and December, 1990. The intervening period between 1981 to 1984 was left out because the said period had been treated to be covered by the earlier enquiry committee consisting of two members. The intervening period between 1981 to 1984 was left out because the said period had been treated to be covered by the earlier enquiry committee consisting of two members. This committee of three members submitted its report on 22.7.1993 and as per that report also the appointments made on ad hocldaily wage basis were found to be illegal for the reasons that the appointment procedure was not followed and rules of reservation were ignored. This committee however noted that against the sanctioned strength of 3033 posts only 2268 employees were working in the Bank. The committee admittedly enquired into the general procedure of appointments and not into individual cases of every employee. 11. But petitioners have alleged and the respondents have not controverted the fact that the Bank had communicated to the Government on 7.3.1996 the difficulties being faced in implementation of the enquiry reports because services of some of the employees appointed in similar manner had been regularised after directions of this court issued in one or another case. In the meantime, one Jai Prakash Rai and 7 others had fiied a writ application bearing CWJC No. 10673/95 with a prayer to direct the Bank to make regular appointments against such sanctioned posts which were either lying vacant or were occupied by persons engaged on daily wage/adhoc basis. According to the petitioners the regularisation of their services and other similar employees had not been questioned in the aforesaid writ application and they were not made party in that case. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of by order dated 13.1.1997 with a direction to the Bank to take a final decision with regard to persons continuing as class-Ill and IV employees in the Bank in irregular manner within two months. Thereafter the Bank issued identical show-cause notices to about 700 employees of the Bank including the petitioners in the month of August, and September 1997 calling upon them to show-cause as to why their appointments should not be cancelled in view of reports of the enquiry committees as well as order of this court dated 13.1.97 passed in CWJC no. 10673 of 1995. Such show-cause notices were challenged through various writ applications such as CWJC no. 8553/1997 and analogous cases. 10673 of 1995. Such show-cause notices were challenged through various writ applications such as CWJC no. 8553/1997 and analogous cases. The writ applications were dismissed vide orded 2.11.1998 as prematured and with an observation that concerned employees should file their show-cause within time granted by the court and they would have liberty to challenge the ultimate order if passed against them. No interference was made with the aforesaid order dated 2.11.1998 in LPA no. 1231/1998 and other analogous appeals disposed of on 15.3.2000. The petitioners filed their show-cause and pointed out to the authorities, inter alia, that the show-cause notices disclose that the authorities had already made up their mind to terminate petitioners services and hence it was an empty formality; that the initial appointments of the petitioners were on ad hoc/dally wage basis by theauthority competent to make such appointment; subsequently their services were regularised on sanctioned and vacant posts in the year, 1987, as per policy decision of the respondent-Bank and since then the petitioners had been treated as regular permanent and confirmed employees. Thereafter services of the petitioners have been terminated by the impugned orders issued in August, 2000 which are under challenge in the present writ applications as noticed earlier. 12. The main contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners are that at the time the petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc/daily wage basis the Bank as a Registered Co-operative Society was not bound by Rules of appointment and reservation relating to State Government employees; the initial appointments for limited periods were in accordance with Rule 14 of the rules of recruitment approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 8th June, 1970; the Rules of reservation applicable to services under the State were not applicable to the Bank as per the approved rules of 1970; petitioners services were regularised long ago in.the interest of the Bank as per its policy decision and it was not permissible for the Bank to reopen the matter of petitioners initial appointments and to terminate their services after 19 years or more. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that actually there was no ban over appointments in the Bank specially on ad hoc/daily wage basis and the ground of overage cannot be available to the respondent-Bank because age can be relaxed by the employer and once regularisation of service was allowed on the basis of all the relevant facts, such a ground cannot be raised for termination of services of permanent regular employees. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank relying upon facts and grounds disclosed in the orders of termination, specially upon the reports of two enquiry committees dated 14.3.1984 and 22.7.1993 submitted that the initial appointments suffered from serious infirmity as there was a ban on appointments and promotions imposed by the Government and the appointments were void because applications were not invited through advertisement and provisions for reservation were not followed. According to respondents such an infirmity rendered the appointments void because they were in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. in such eventuality, according to the respondents the subsequent regularisation was meaningless and petitioners cannot derive any advantage even if they continued in service for more than 19 years. 14. From the materials on record it is clear that petitioners were initially appointed in the year, 1981 or earlier on ad hoc/daily wage basis for limited periods, such appointment was permissible under Rule-14 of the recruitment rules approved for the Bank by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in June, 1970. Even if there was a ban on such appointment applicable to the Bank, it was lifted on 29.9.1981 pursuant to request of the Bank. Since the petitioners services were extended for further periods after 29.9.1981 hence, the first ground mentioned in the impugned orders that the appointment was in teeth of ban imposed by the State Government has no substance. 15. It is the second common ground for termination-that appointments were made without advertisement and without following the rules of reservation which is of substantive nature and requires detailed consideration. A perusal of approved rules of recruitment (Annexure-2) shows that regular permanent appointments for other than cfass-IV categories of posts had to be made after written examination followed by oral interview and for class-IV staff only personal interview was required. A perusal of approved rules of recruitment (Annexure-2) shows that regular permanent appointments for other than cfass-IV categories of posts had to be made after written examination followed by oral interview and for class-IV staff only personal interview was required. Besides regular permanent appointments, Rule, 14 permitted filling up vacancies in ministerial cadre and lower posts on purely temporary basis in the interest of work. For such appointments" on ad hoc/daily wage basis no advertisement or reservation was prescribed. Even for regular appointments the rules required written examination but did not specifically require any advertisement for inviting applications nor they mentioned anything regarding age or reservation. According to undisputed claim of the petitioners statutory rules were prescribed for the first time vide notification no. 926 dated 9.2.1989 in exercise of power prescribed u/s 66 B of the Act and these rules which prescribe in detail the procedure of appointments such as advertisement in newspapers and also provision for reservation as prescribed by the State, were prospective and hence not applicable to the case of the petitioners. A copy of rules produced by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank at the stage of hearing shows that detailed rules containing provisions for advertisement and reservation etc. were framed for the Bank in exercise of powers conferred by different clauses of the Bye Laws of the Bank. Rule 4 of these rules provides that these rules shall be deemed to have came into force from the date of approval of the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Govt of Bihar. There is nothing on record or in the copy of these rules to disclose the date or even the year of coming into force of these rules. In absence of any material either in the copy of rules or in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank it is not possible to presume that such detailed rules framed under the Bye Laws of the Bank were in force at the relevant time when the petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc/daily wage basis. The statutory rules u/s 66B of the Act undisputedly came into force only on 9.2.1989. 16. The statutory rules u/s 66B of the Act undisputedly came into force only on 9.2.1989. 16. In such circumstances as noticed above, it is clear that for temporary recruitment for limited period the requirement of advertisement or of following the rules of reservation were not prescribed by the then prevailing Rules framed under the Bye Laws of the Bank and the statutory rules containing such provisions came into effect much later on 9.2.1989. Since the rules in force at the relevant time provided for and permitted filling up vacancies in ministerial cadre and lower posts on purely temporary basis in the manner done hence such appointments made in the interest of work as per provision in the rules cannot be treated as appointment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, the initial entry of the appointees like the petitioners would not be unauthorised and their initial appointments cannot be treated as void ab-initio. The facts noticed with regard to the petitioners disclose that their entry into service was in accordance with the provision in the rules. Thereafter, their services were extended from time to time on account of exigency of work and on account of failure of the Bank to fill up the vacancies in regular manner. It was in such circumstances that their services were regularised under a conscious policy decision taken by Board of the Bank and as a consequence the petitioners have continued as permanent and confirmed employees of the Bank for 13 years or more. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners have rightly submitted that equity now lies in favour of the petitioners and they should not be permitted to be thrown out of job at this late stage of their life when they are to shoulder heavy responsibilities as parents/bread earners. This court, in the facts of the case, feels that if the respondent-Bank wanted to act on the basis of allegations now being hurled against the petitioners, it should have been done so in the year, 1984 itself when the report of the first enquiry committee became available. At that period of time these petitioners could have competed with others in any regular process of recruitments and in case of failure also most of them could have looked for other jobs on the basis of their young age. At that period of time these petitioners could have competed with others in any regular process of recruitments and in case of failure also most of them could have looked for other jobs on the basis of their young age. In such circumstances and specially in view of the fact noticed above that initial entry of petitioners in the service at the relevant time was in accordance with the rules then applicable, equity must be found in favour of the petitioners. 17. Before concluding the discussion it is relevant to mention that both the sides have relied upon a number of case laws. Judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners such as- (i) (1998)8 SCC, 59 (Roshni Devi V/s. The State of Haryana), (ii) AIR, 1999, SC 517 (Union of India V/s. Kishorilal Bablani), (iii) AIR, 1999, SC, 1624 (V. M. Chandra V/s. Union of India), (iv) AIR 1992 SC 2130 (State of Haryana V/s. Piara Singh), (v) 1994 (2) BLJ 499 (Ashok Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar) and (vi) 2000(1) PLJR, 642 (Tarkeshwar Singh V/s. The State of Bihar) support the contention that in given circumstances regularisation of ternporary employees under a policy decision is permissible and long years of service can give rise to equity in favour of an employee. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) a Division Bench of this court in paragraph 10 of the judgment clearly held thus : "Thus, even if the appointment of the petitioners were initially wrong, after regularisation the question of validity of the appointment cannot be reopened after a lapse of about 12 years". 18. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has, in support of the submission that if the initial appointment is against law and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India then no regularisation is permissible, relied upon the following judgments:- (i) AIR 1996 SC 2775 (Surinder Singh Jamwal V/s. State of J & K) (ii) AIR 1997 SC 1628 : 1997(1) PLJR (SC) 59 (Ashwani Kumar V/s. State of Bihar), (iii) AIR 2001 SC 201 (Subedar Singh V/s. District Judge, Mirjapur), (iv) (1998)3 SCC 88 (Dr. Meera Massey V/s. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra), (v) (1998)6 SCC 165 (State of M. P. V/s. Dharambir). Meera Massey V/s. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra), (v) (1998)6 SCC 165 (State of M. P. V/s. Dharambir). Some other judgments were also cited but they are not being noticed because they related to the question of requirement of natural jusice for removal of patently illegal appointees or such employees whose services were temporary or on daily wage basis and the removal order was found to be termination simpliciter. Such issues have not been raised in this case and hence those judgments are not relevant. In the case of Dr. Surinder Singh (supra) the prayer before the court was to order for regularisation and the same was refused because ad hoc appointments had been made against the service rules. But still the Supreme Court permitted them to continue till regular appointments and age requirement was condoned to enable the ad hoc employees to apply and seek selection according to rules. In the present case petitioners were regularised in the year, 1987. In the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with notorious fraudulent appointments of thousands of employees by one Dr. Mallic in total disregard of all norms and known methods of appointments and without caring for existence of post or vacancies. In paragraph 12 of that judgment the Apex Court considered the effect of confirmation of such employees whose entry itself was illegal and void and the ratio laid down was "question of confirmation or regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the concerned candidate is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. But if the initial entry itself is unauthorised and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, question of regularising the incumbent on such a nonexisting vacancy would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in futility. It would amount to decorating a still born baby" it follows from this judgment that if the initial entry was authorised then appointees on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy may be validly considered for regularisation. In the case of Subedar Singh (supra) the claim for regularisation was turned down because the appointments made were not in consonance with the statutory rules. In the case of Dr. In the case of Subedar Singh (supra) the claim for regularisation was turned down because the appointments made were not in consonance with the statutory rules. In the case of Dr. Meera Massey (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with ad hoc appointment of teachers in an University and in the context of need for maintaining standard of teaching in Universities the need to adhere to the laws of the Universities viz. Act, statutes and ordinances was high lighted in paragraph 27 of the judgment and it was further observed that for regutarisation to the post of teachers in Universities a law must be prescribed certainly not on parity with the general principle of law of industrial workmen or class-IV employees or the casual worker or daily worker. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Dharambir (supra) the concerned employee wanted his ad hoc promotion to be treated as regular promotion for obstructing regular promotion process initiated on the basis of recruitment rules. In that context the court held that the nature of appointment will not change with passage of time. A discussion of above case laws makes the legal position clear that claim for regularisation will not be allowed by courts by ignoring statutory provisions or rules and even if regularisation has been allowed, as in the case of Ashwani Kumar, it will be of no consequence if the initial entry in the service was unauthorised and not against existing vacancies. From paragraph 13 of the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar it is further clear that regularisation is possible in two contingencies. Firstly, if against clear vacancies appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time for a long period of time and their services are otherwise required by the institution, but for regularisation in such a case the initial entry of such employee against available vacancy should have been in accordance with rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation for regularisation would be when the initial entry against an available vacancy may have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to appoint and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. In such a situation the procedural flaw may be waived. The second type of situation for regularisation would be when the initial entry against an available vacancy may have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to appoint and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. In such a situation the procedural flaw may be waived. 19 In view of such settled law and the facts of this case it is found that petitioners entry into service on ad hoc/daily wage basis was as per provisions in the rule governing such temporary entry and by a competent authority. It is not the case of respondents that there were no vacancies. It is also not disputed that their services were continued from time to time. Their services were regularised when the Bank failed to fill up the vacancies in a regular manner. Hence, in such facts the contention of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted that the regularisation of petitioners services is of no consequence and should be ignored even after a lapse of long years. 20. On the basis of undisputed pleadings noticed earlier the petitioners have also succeeded in showing that some later appointed similarly situated employees of the Bank have been regularised in service on account of orders passed by this court in various writ petitions. For that reason also the petitioners deserve to be continued in service in view of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have not pleaded that action is being contemplated against such other employees and although the orders of this court have not been produced but since regularisation has been made on account of orders of this court hence it may not be open for the respondents to reopen the cases of those employees who were regularised in view of different orders of this court. 21. There is yet another aspect in favour of the petitioners which may be noticed in brief. The secretary of the concerned department who was one of the members of the first enquiry committee was also present as a member of the Board of Directors in the meeting in which decision was taken for regularisation of petitioners services. 21. There is yet another aspect in favour of the petitioners which may be noticed in brief. The secretary of the concerned department who was one of the members of the first enquiry committee was also present as a member of the Board of Directors in the meeting in which decision was taken for regularisation of petitioners services. On that basis it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the representative of the Government had taken no action against such decision either himself or through the Registrar, Co- operative Societies and hence, any defect on account of earlier ban must be deemed to have been waived and such facts demonstrate acquiescence to the decision for regularisation of old temporary employees like the petitioners. For this purpose reliance has been placed upon AIR 1977 SC 112 (Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank V/s. Narain). The said judgement of the Supreme Court clearly helps the case of the petitioners more so because it has been noticed that no statutory provisions or rules were violated either at the time of initial entry of the petitioners or at the time of their regularisation on the basis of such entry. 22. So far as some individual shortcomings like overage in case of some of the petitioners is concerned, these calculations appear to have been made on the basis of rules introduced subsequently as there are no such requirements in the rules approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar in the year, 1970. Further, such shortcomings can be waived by the employer in appropriate cases and it will not be proper to permit the respondents to raise such issues with regard to appointments made more than 19 years ago. Any such probe after so many years would be unfair and unreasonable. Further, equity, as held earlier would also be available in aid of the petitioners. 23. For all the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders of termination of petitioners services are found to be illegal, arbitrary and against equity. Hence, they are quashed. The writ applications are allowed and respondents are directed to treat the petitioners in continuous service with all consequential benefits. 24. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.