Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these writ applications have been heard together, as common questions of facts and law are Involved therein, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this order. 3. The petitioners are challenging the orders of termination from the posts of Clerk. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Clerk in the year 1992 by the competent authority pursuant to due advertisement of the posts and their appointments were approved by the establishment committee vide its resolution dated 3.3.1992 and now they have been terminated on the ground that they were appointed contrary to the procedures laid down in law. 5. It Is submitted at the bar that one Sandhya Kumari, similarly situated to these petitioners, was also terminated and she challenged the order of termination in C.W.J.C. No. 7131 of 2000 and this Court vide order, as contained in annexure 15 to the supplementary affidavit, allowed the writ application and set aside the order of termination and she was directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits except the salary for the period, for which she had not actually worked under the respondents. It is also stated at the bar that the order, as contained in annexure 15, is pending consideration in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2002 and owing to the fact that she joined the post after the order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 15 to the supplementary affidavit, no stay has been granted in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2002. 6. From the record of both these cases, it appears that there are interim orders passed by this Court dated 26.7.2000 and 2.8.2000, respectively, whereby and whereunder, operation of the impugned or- ders have been stayed. 7. This fact, however, is not being disputed by learned counsel for the State, 8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are continuing on the respective posts by virtue of the interim orders of this Court, as referred to above. 9. From the facts, as enumerated above, both these cases appear to be similar to that of Sandhya Kumari and the order passed by this Court in case of Sandhya Kumari in C.W.J.C. No. 7131 of 2000, therefore, squarely covers both these cases. 10. 9. From the facts, as enumerated above, both these cases appear to be similar to that of Sandhya Kumari and the order passed by this Court in case of Sandhya Kumari in C.W.J.C. No. 7131 of 2000, therefore, squarely covers both these cases. 10. Both these writ applications, therefore, are allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7131 of 2000 and the orders impugned are set aside.