JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In these two writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In CWJC. No. 3174/96 (R) there are 18 petitioners who have sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.8.1996 issued by respondent No. 5, the Assistant Manager-Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., (for Short UCIL) whereby the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with after one month on the basis of the order dated 8.7.1996 passed by this Court in a writ petition being CWJC. No. 1486/95 (R) Prem Kumar Agnihotri v. UCIL. In CWJC. No. 1404/95 (R) the petition initially sought for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to absorb him in service on the post of Overseer-D but during the pendency of the writ petition by filing an amendment petition the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ for quashing the letter dated 1.1.1996 issued by the same respondent No. 5 terminating his services on the ground that his service was no more required. 3. The facts in both the case are almost similar excepting some few facts which shall be stated hereinafter. The petitioners of CWJC. No. 3174/96 (R) were appointed in between 1987-88 on the post of Overseer-D pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent after complying with the procedures and the recruitment rules. Although the period of three years expired sometime in 1991 but these petitioners were allowed to continue in service and their term of service was time to time extended by the Corporation. In 1994 the Corporation decided to absorb the petitioners along with others on permanent post and a letter to that effect was issued on 23.4.1994 calling upon these petitioners also for personal interview. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application. It appears that after the said interview no final order for absorption on the permanent post was issued but these petitioners were allowed to continue in service till 1996. All of a sudden the impugned letter dated 24.8.1996 was issued terminating the services of the petitioners in view of the order dated 8.7.1996 passed in CWJC No. 1386/95 (R). 4. It appears that after the said interview no final order for absorption on the permanent post was issued but these petitioners were allowed to continue in service till 1996. All of a sudden the impugned letter dated 24.8.1996 was issued terminating the services of the petitioners in view of the order dated 8.7.1996 passed in CWJC No. 1386/95 (R). 4. In CWJC No. 1404/95 (R) the petitioner was appointed in the same manner on the post of Overseer-D as against 29 posts advertised by the respondents vide advertisement dated 22.5.1990. Although the appointment was for a period of four years, the petitioner continued in service even after expiry of four years and in a similar way an interview letter dated 23.4.1994 was issued to him for his absorption on permanent post. Petitioners further case is that in 1993 he got an opportunity of appointment in other organization and, therefore, he sought recommendation of his application by the respondents which was not allowed. On the contrary, the petitioner was relieved for a few days from service and again he was re-appointed and, thereafter, continued in the said post till 1996 when the impugned order of termination dated 1.1.1996 was issued. 5. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 3174/95 (R) firstly submitted that the only basis of termination of the services of the petitioners is the order dated 8.7.1996 passed in CWJC No. 1486/95 (R) when these petitioners were admittedly not parties nor any direction was issued to the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners, Learned counsel further submitted that the facts of the case in CWJC No. 1486/95 (R) have no relevance at all to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the respondents have committed serious illegality in terminating the services of the petitioners on the basis of the aforementioned order passed by this Court. 6. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWJC No. 1404/95 (R) has drawn my attention to the relevant annexures and submitted that although in the advertisement it was very clearly mentioned that the appointment on the post of Overseer-D shall be initially for a period of four years without mentioning that the appointment was meant only for four years but in the appointment letter it was mentioned that the appointment was for a contract period of four years. Learned counsel submitted that as per condition No. (8) in the appointment letter the petitioner is entitled to be guided by the rules, regulations and the Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel further submitted that the arbitrariness of the Corporation is evident from the fact that on the one hand they are issuing letters of removal of Overseer-D on the ground of expiry of the period of service and on the other, simultaneously they are issuing advertisement calling for applications for the same post of Overseer-D. 7. I shall first discuss the order passed in CWJC No. 1386/95 (R), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application. From perusal of the order it appears that the petitioner, Prem Kumar Agnihotri was appointed for a fixed period of four years. Immediately after the expiry of four years in 1995 he was sought to be relieved from service by issuing order dated 29th March, 1995. The said order was challenged before this Court by filing the aforementioned writ application. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the work of the Project in which the petitioner was appointed for a contract period of four years was already completed and since there was no requirement of services of the Overseer-D, the services of the said petitioner was rightly terminated by the respondent- Corporation. 8. In course of argument before the learned Single Judge it was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that recently the respondents have issued different advertisement to fill up a number of posts from amongst the Overseers-D in different Projects and further that the Corporation had adopted pick and choose policy in the matter of extension of services in respect of other persons. The learned Single Judge simply took notice of the aforesaid submission and observed that such action of the respondent-Corporation was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no direction at all in the aforesaid order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1486/95 (R) to remove or relieve all those Overseers-D who were appointed for a fixed period. 9. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid order cannot and shall not be the basis for terminating of the services of the petitioners of CWJC No. 3174/96 (R). 9. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid order cannot and shall not be the basis for terminating of the services of the petitioners of CWJC No. 3174/96 (R). As noticed above, these 18 petitioners were appointed in 1987-88 and the period of four years expired in 1991-92. The services of these petitioners were time to time extended and they continued in service till 1996. Even in 1994 the Corporation decided to absorb these petitioners on permanent post and for that interview letters were also issued. The more surprising fact is that on the one hand the respondents issued the impugned letter of termination dated 24.8.1996 and on the other hand, they issued different advertisements for filling up the same post on the same terms and conditions. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation in the aforementioned case controverting any of the averments made in the writ petition. 10. Similarly in CWJC No. 1404/95 (R) the petitioner was appointed in 1990 for a period of four years and in 1994 similar interview letter was issued to him also for his absorption on the permanent post. While the petitioner was in the service of the Corporation he got an opportunity of another employment and for that he sought recommendation of the Corporation which was refused vide letter dated 11.3.1993. The petitioner was relieved for a few days and, thereafter, he was again taken into service. In that context I would like to reproduce the letter dated 6.7.1995 issued by the Corporation, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the amendment petition filed by the petitioner which reads as under : "July, 6, 1995. Please refer to your office order No. UCIL/716/GEN dtd. June 20, 1995 regarding release of Shri Akhilesh Kumar. Overseer-D, Emp. No. 3165 of Narwanpahar Project. As per office order he has been relieved from the services of Uranium Corporation of India Limited w.e.f. 28.6.1995 (Afternoon) Shri Akhilesh Kumar has been allowed to join duty w.e.f. 3.7.1995 (Forenoon) Though, there is no advise from your side to withheld the payment of Shri Akhilesh Kumar for the month of June, 1995, we found that his payment has been withheld for the month of June, 1995. Since the employee has been allowed to join duty w.e.f. 3.7.1995 we request to advise Additional Manager (A/Cs) (sic) release the payment for the month of June, 1995. Sd/K Mahali Manager (Pers. and Admn)" 11. Then immediately thereafter another letter 19.7.1995 was issued appointing the petitioner as Overseer-B and it was mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled to draw D.A. and other allowances as applicable to other workman of comparable status of the company. Then again the service of the petitioner was extended by letter dated 28.12.1995 and thereafter the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service was issued and simultaneously advertisements were issued by the Corporation to fill up the same post on the same terms and conditions. 12. Although learned counsel appearing for the parties have relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court but in my view from the facts of the case itself I have no doubt in my mind that the action of the Corporation is wholly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction. The respondent- Corporation being a Government of India Organization is not supposed to behave in such a manner which they did with the present petitioners. 13. These writ applications are, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders terminating the services of the petitioners are quashed and it is directed that they shall immediately be taken into service. 14. It appears that pursuant to inter im order passed in CWJC No. 3174 of 1996 (R) all the 18 petitioners are continuing in service. Consequently, they shall continue in service unless their services are terminated in accordance with law. So far the petitioner of CWJC No. 1404 of 1995 (R) is concerned, he shall immediately be taken into service and shall be paid all consequential benefits. Petition allowed.