JUDGMENT : N. Sailo, J. Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. This order will dispose of both the 2 (two) writ petitions. WP(C) No. 135/2018 is filed by 3 (three) petitioners with the grievance that they have been illegally and arbitrarily released from their service by the respondent authority concerned. WP(C) No. 40/2019 is filed by petitioner No. 3 alone in WP(C) No. 135/2018, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities concerned to allow her stay in the official quarter allotted to her. Since the outcome of the writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 135/2018 will cover the issue raised in WP(C) No. 40/2019, WP(C) No. 135/2018 is taken up for consideration first. 3. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposing the 2 (two) writ petitions may be noticed at the outset. The State Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (SIRD & PR) is a registered SIRD & PR under the Mizoram Societies Registration Act, 2005. It was initially known as the State Institute of Rural Development but subsequently, it was renamed as already stated herein above. 4. After the registration of the SIRD & PR, the respondent No. 2 vide Notification dated 21.08.2000 (Annexure-2) constituted the Governing Body of SIRD & PR and as per Clause-2 (5), the Governing Body was to function under the supervision and guidance of the State Level Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) of SIRD & PR. The Governing Body has the power to create such category and number of posts as required by the Institute within the sanctioned budget and to act as the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority for all categories of employees of the Institute. In the two writ petitions, the Advisory Committee represented by its Chairman and SIRD & PR by its Director are arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively. 5. The petitioner No. 1, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee held from 27.09.2001 to 30.09.2001 and as approved by the Governing Body on 18.09.2001, was appointed as Chowkidar on contract basis for a period of 2 (two) years vide Office Order dated 21.09.2001 (Annexure-3). 3 & 4 respectively. 5. The petitioner No. 1, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee held from 27.09.2001 to 30.09.2001 and as approved by the Governing Body on 18.09.2001, was appointed as Chowkidar on contract basis for a period of 2 (two) years vide Office Order dated 21.09.2001 (Annexure-3). As per the appointment order, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was purely temporary and coterminus with the SIRD & PR. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 vide Office Order dated 14.03.2006 (Annexure-4) changed the appointment of the petitioner No. 1 as co-terminus with the SIRD & PR and with the further condition that the age of retirement will be similar to that of Mizoram Government Service in non-teaching department and that the Central Civil Service Rules, with regard to the medical attendance, leave and any other rules or those deemed to have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, shall apply to the service and the decision of the Governing Body, to the extent of its applicability, shall be final. 6. The petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed as a Care Taker on Muster Roll basis for about 4 years and he was subsequently appointed as Care Taker/UDC on contract basis for a period of 2 (two) years vide Order dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure- 6). The appointment was pursuant to the decision of the Governing Body, which held its meeting on 08.02.2006. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 vide Order dated 04.08.2009 with the approval of the Governing Body changed the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 into co-terminus with the SIRD & PR and with the condition that his age of retirement will be as that of Mizoram Government Service in non-teaching department and his service will be governed by the Central Civil Service Rules as was mentioned in respect of petitioner No. 1 herein above. 7. The petitioner No. 3 was also appointed initially as Muster Roll LDC for about 4 (four) years and subsequently, pursuant to the decision of the Governing Body, she was appointed as LDC/Technician on contract basis for a period of 2 (two) years vide Office Order dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure-7). 8. 7. The petitioner No. 3 was also appointed initially as Muster Roll LDC for about 4 (four) years and subsequently, pursuant to the decision of the Governing Body, she was appointed as LDC/Technician on contract basis for a period of 2 (two) years vide Office Order dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure-7). 8. The respondent No. 2 vide Notification dated 01.06.2015 (Annexure-9) had notified the constituted State Level Committee (Advisory Committee) for the SIRD & PR comprising of the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram, as a Chairman, Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development Department as a Vice Chairman and 8 (eight) other officials of the Finance, Planning, Local Administration Department as members. The respondent No. 3 in its meeting held on 26.06.2018 at Point No. 7 resolved as follows:- "7. Premature/Voluntary Retirement of Employees: As per the revised guidelines on strengthening/establishment of SIRDs and ETCs issued vide letter F. No. M-13015/01/2014-Trg dated 07th August, 2017 (which is effective from 1st April, 2017), the cost norm for salary of nonteaching staff subject to maximum consolidated amount had been fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month or as per actual (The remaining expenditure on salary will be borne by the State Government). The State, at the moment, finds it difficult to allocate more fund. Therefore, the SLAC recommends to downsizing of the SIRD & PR employees depending on the performance and health condition of the employees. Director, SIRD&PR is being authorized to take necessary action for downsizing the staff, the following criteria shall be taken into account while terminating the staff - (i) non-performance of duties. (ii) negligence of duty. (iii) intoxicated while on duty (iv) frail health due to intoxication/addiction of liquor/drugs. The action taken with regards to downsizing of staff shall be reported in the next meeting of SLAC. The meeting ended with vote of thanks from the Chairman." 9. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, while they were sincerely discharging their duties, the respondent No. 4 illegally released them from service w.e.f., 06.08.2018 vide orders all passed on the same date i.e., 06.08.2018 (Annexure-11, 12 & 13). As per the impugned orders, the petitioners were released from service since the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had limited fund to continue further with their employment. As per the impugned orders, the petitioners were released from service since the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had limited fund to continue further with their employment. However, in view of the many years of service put in by the petitioners, they were being paid severance allowance from the corpus fund of the SIRD & PR to help them re-locate themselves. Aggrieved with the impugned orders, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, under Rule 29 of the CCS, CCA (Rules), 1965 on 10.09.2018. According to the petitioners, they were released from their service in violation of all norms and fair play and without any show-cause notice. Further, even if they were to be retrenched or ousted from their service due to paucity of fund, even then the principle of last come and first go should have been applied. However, despite submitting the revision petition, the petitioners having received no response, they have approached this Court through the present writ petition. 10. Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the 47th Meeting Minutes of the Advisory Committee, held on 26.06.2018, the respondent No. 4 was authorized to take necessary action for downsizing the staff based on the four criteria as already abstracted herein above. However, the said respondent was not authorized to issue the impugned order without the approval of the Advisory Committee. Referring to the meeting minutes of the 48th Advisory Committee meeting, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners, alongwith five others were said to have been released from the SIRD & PR w.e.f., 01.09.2018 and which was approved by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on 27.08.2018. However, he submits that there are no materials on record to show that the petitioners were released on 01.09.2018 and that such approval was given by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on 20.08.2018. He submits that the petitioners were in fact released from their service vide the impugned Orders dated 06.08.2018 with immediate effect. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 at paragraph No. 16 of their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 06.03.2019 themselves have admitted that there were other employees appointed on contract basis after the petitioners were appointed, but their services are still retained unlike the petitioners. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 at paragraph No. 16 of their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 06.03.2019 themselves have admitted that there were other employees appointed on contract basis after the petitioners were appointed, but their services are still retained unlike the petitioners. He submits that the respondent authorities concerned ought to have followed the principle of last come first go. The same having not been done, impugned orders are liable to interfered with by this Court. 12. Mr. A.R Malhotra also submits that services of the petitioners have been made co-terminus with the SIRD & PR and therefore, as long as SIRD & PR and the scheme exist, they cannot be released in the manner they have been done. He submits that the petitioners were not even issued a show-cause notice and that the Notice dated 10.07.2018 annexed as Annexure-15 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, cannot be construed as a notice. Firstly, the same was not received by the petitioners and secondly, the same falls short of one month or 30 (thirty) days as contemplated in the contract agreement as pointed out by the respondents. The petitioners were released from their service w.e.f., 06.08.2018 and therefore, a period of one month had not lapsed on the date of the notice i.e., 10.07.2018. 13. Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that in fact, the services of the petitioners have been made permanent by the respondent authorities themselves and that being the position, they could not have been released through the impugned orders. 14. Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel by referring to paragraph No. 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, submits that the respondents claimed to have made some sort of an internal assessment on the staff members of the SIRD & PR and on the basis of which, 8 (eight) employees, including the petitioners, have been released from their service. He submits that the making of such internal assessment and non-communication of the same to the petitioners have greatly prejudiced them. He submits that the same cannot be made the basis for passing of the impugned order. In this connection, he relies upon the Apex Court decision in Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission and others, (2015) 14 SCC 427 . Referring to the said authority Mr. He submits that the same cannot be made the basis for passing of the impugned order. In this connection, he relies upon the Apex Court decision in Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission and others, (2015) 14 SCC 427 . Referring to the said authority Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that the Apex Court has held that it was impermissible for one to be denied promotion on the basis of un-communicated entries in the ACRs. He submits that similar principle will apply to the case of the petitioners in the instant case and therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable even on this ground. 15. The learned counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners on 26.07.2019, submits that one of the employees, who was released from his service alongwtih the petitioners, was subsequently appointed again but on Muster Roll basis. He therefore submits that this only goes to show the unequal treatment given to the petitioners. 16. Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that the Governing Body of the SIRD & PR and the Advisory Committee compromises of Government officials and from various Government Departments and therefore, SIRD & PR is an instrumentality of the State. He submits that it is a settled law that if any organization or establishment has a pervasive control by the Government, such establishment certainly would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, he relies upon the Apex Court decision in Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 345 . In so far as the principles of last come last go is concerned, Mr. A.R Malhotra relies upon the case of Central Welfare Board & Ors.vs. Anjali Bepari (Ms) & Ors, (1996) 10 SCC 133 . The learned counsel thus submits that under the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders may be interfered with by this Court by passing appropriate orders. 17. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submits that the appointment of the petitioners is governed by the Agreement Deed signed by the petitioners and the respondent No. 4. Referring to the same which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 17. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submits that the appointment of the petitioners is governed by the Agreement Deed signed by the petitioners and the respondent No. 4. Referring to the same which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, the learned counsel submits that the services of the petitioners can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason for being unfit and due to medical reasons or if they are found to be inefficient and unsuitable. Their services can also be terminated at any time by the authority concerned or the Governing Body by giving one month's notice in writing. The same also comes with a proviso that the competent authority in lieu of such notice and do away with their service by giving them a sum equal to one month's Pay. He therefore submits that the petitioners were not only given a notice prior to their release from service on 10.07.2018 but in fact, they were given severance allowance, which is much more than one month's Pay they are entitled to. The learned counsel, referring to the 48th Meeting Minutes of the Advisory Committee held on 17.10.2018 annexed as Annexure-17 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, submits that the Advisory Committee approved the action taken by the respondent No. 4 on the downsizing of the employees of SIRD & PR and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that the impugned orders were passed without any approval of the competent authority. He further submits that due to the financial position of the SIRD & PR, a 3 (three) member committee was constituted to look into the re-structuring of the establishment. As per the report given by the committee concerned, as many as 27 posts under the SIRD & PR were found to be in surplus and out of which, there were nine incumbents occupying nine posts. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee decided to abolish the surplus posts by authorizing the respondent No. 4 to take necessary action for downsizing the staff by following the four criterias as mentioned in the 47th Meeting Minutes of the Advisory Committee held on 26.06.2018. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee decided to abolish the surplus posts by authorizing the respondent No. 4 to take necessary action for downsizing the staff by following the four criterias as mentioned in the 47th Meeting Minutes of the Advisory Committee held on 26.06.2018. An internal assessment was therefore made on all the staffs working under the SIRD & PR and that is how 8 (eight) staffs including the 3 (three) petitions were recommended for being released from service, by paying them severance allowance. The learned counsel submits that the internal assessment made by the respondents' authorities concerned cannot be equated as ACRs and in fact, the assessment was made only to find out the desirability of retaining the services of the staffs in view of the steps taken for downsizing the staffs of the SIRD & PR due to financial constraints. The internal assessment, therefore, cannot be impugned as if it was a penalty imposed upon the petitioners to release them from their service. 18. The learned counsel, in support of his submission on abolition of posts, relies upon the Apex decision in M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State of Kerala & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 650 . Further, the learned counsel submits that sympathy alone cannot be the ground to grant relief when none of the rights of the party concerned has been infringed or affected. In this connection, he relies upon the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Ors, (2008) 1 SCC 456 . 19. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala further submits that the petitioners being employed under the SIRD & PR, they cannot be equated with regular Government servants. In this connection, he refers to the definition of Government Servant as provided in Rule 2(h) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He submits that the terms and conditions of their appointment is governed by the contract agreement and therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned orders, by which they were released from their service by invoking a public law i.e., writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the protection available to Government employees as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India also is not available to the petitioners. He submits that the protection available to Government employees as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India also is not available to the petitioners. He therefore submits that even on this ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Lucy R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors, (2017) 4 GauLT 838(ML). (ii) State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust & Ors.,1994 3 SCC 568. 20. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala further submits that non-issuance of notice or defective notice cannot be said to be fatal when reasonable opportunity has been given. He submits that the petitioners on 10.07.2018 were all given notice and therefore, it can be safely concluded that they had been given reasonable opportunity. In support of his submission, he relies upon the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors. Vs. Subhash & CO.,2003 3 SCC 463. He thus submits that another facts and circumstances, the petitioners do not have any legitimate grievance and as such, the writ petitions may be dismissed. 21. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 supports and adopts the arguments and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Referring to the 47th Meeting Minutes of the Advisory Committee held on 26.06.2018, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 4 was indeed authorized by the Advisory Committee to take necessary steps for downsizing of the staffs. He submits that the internal assessment made by the respondent authorities, as can be seen from the annexure appended to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, filed on 29.05.2019 were for the purpose of downsizing the staffs and not for any other purposes. He submits that the same was undertaken to see the suitability of each and every member of the staff working under the SIRD & PR wherein, all the staff were considered. It was only after such exercise that a decision was taken to release the petitioners from their service and at the same time, considering the services rendered by the petitioners under the SIRD & PR. A considerable amount was given to each of them as severance allowance to help them relocate themselves. It was only after such exercise that a decision was taken to release the petitioners from their service and at the same time, considering the services rendered by the petitioners under the SIRD & PR. A considerable amount was given to each of them as severance allowance to help them relocate themselves. Under the facts and circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition being without any merit should be dismissed. 22. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the records produced by Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 23. From the projection made by the petitioners and the response made by the respondents, the issue to be considered and decided is as to whether the petitioners could have been released from their respective services through the impugned orders. Before considering this issue, another aspect of the matter which has to be looked into, is as to whether the impugned decision of the respondent authorities concerned is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Although it may be seen that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis by signing an Agreement Deed with the respondent authorities concerned but the fact remains that the petitioners after being appointed on contract basis, their status was changed as co-terminus with the SIRD & PR. It was further provided that their retirement age will be similar with that of those in Government Service and not a non-teaching department. Not only this, their services will be governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, CCS (Medical Attendants) Rules, CCS (Leave) Rules etc. including any other Rules, which is framed or deemed to have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 308 of the Constitution of India. 24. In addition to this, the respondent No. 4 vide office order dated 17.11.2014 issued under Memo No. B.12014/1/2010- SIRD (MZ) in terms of the decision taken in the 35th Meeting of the Governing Body of SIRD, Mizoram, held on 10.11.2014, the term "Co-Terminus with SIRD" was replaced with "Permanent Appointment". 24. In addition to this, the respondent No. 4 vide office order dated 17.11.2014 issued under Memo No. B.12014/1/2010- SIRD (MZ) in terms of the decision taken in the 35th Meeting of the Governing Body of SIRD, Mizoram, held on 10.11.2014, the term "Co-Terminus with SIRD" was replaced with "Permanent Appointment". The order further mentioned that as resolved in the Meeting, the retirement age of all the employees of SIRD will be 60 years and those services, which were considered coterminus with the SIRD, need not be brought to the Governing Body for extension of service but the services will be only liable to be reviewed by the Governing Body on account of lapses or negligence of duty on their part at any time. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be considered to have been merely a contract employee under the SIRD & PR. The Apex Court in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited and Others Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 345 clearly laid down the parameters under which an establishment can be considered to be an instrumentality of the State. In the instant case as well, the Governing Body as well as the Advisory Committee comprises of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members, who all are various officials working under the State Government or under the Ministry. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the respondents that the impugned orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction or under the public law. 25. Now coming to the first issue as to whether the impugned orders are sustainable or not, it may be noticed that the respondents took a decision for downsizing the strength of the staff working under the SIRD & PR in the 47th Meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 26.06.2018. As per Clause 7 of the Meeting Minutes, which has already been abstract hereinabove, it may be seen that such decision was taken in view of the revised guidelines on strengthening/establishment of SIRDs and ETCs issued vide letter dated 07.08.2017 and which is effective from 01.04.2017, the cost norm for salary of non-teaching staff subject to maximum consolidated amount was fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month or as per the actual. The remaining expenditure on salary is to be borne by the State Government. 1,50,000/- per month or as per the actual. The remaining expenditure on salary is to be borne by the State Government. Since the State Government found it difficult to allocate more fund, therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended downsizing of the employees working under the SIRD & PR depending under the performance and health condition of the employees. The respondent No. 4 was, therefore, authorized to take necessary action for downsizing the staff by following the criteria as below:- (1) Non-performance of duties. (2) Negligence of duty. (3) Intoxication while on duty. (4) Frail health due to intoxication/addiction of liquor/drugs. 26. Following the above resolution, the respondent authorities undertook an internal assessment of the staff members. After making such internal assessment as can be appreciated from the annexures appended to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the petitioners were released from their services vide the impugned orders, all dated 06.08.2018. 27. While it is equally true that the respondent authorities can take a policy decision to downsizing the staff working under the SIRD & PR through its constituted Governing Body. Also, the State Level Advisory Committee of the SIRD & PR constituted under the Notification dated 01.06.2015 has been empowered to create such category and number of posts required by the Institute within the sanctioned budget and to act as the appointing and disciplinary authority for all categories and employees of the Institute but the fact remains that when an internal assessment has been made upon the employees of the SIRD & PR, which is adverse in nature, it will only be incumbent upon the respondent authorities to at least give an opportunity to them by issuing appropriate show cause notice as to why they should not be released from their services due to non-performance and in view of the decision of downsizing the staff of the SIRD & PR. It may also be noticed that internal assessment admittedly is not conducted at regular intervals to assess the suitability of the employees by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the assessment made is a one-time exercise for downsizing the staffs of SIRD & PR and as such, a proper show-cause notice is a must. It may also be noticed that internal assessment admittedly is not conducted at regular intervals to assess the suitability of the employees by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the assessment made is a one-time exercise for downsizing the staffs of SIRD & PR and as such, a proper show-cause notice is a must. Although, notice dated 10.07.2018 was said to be issued to the 9 (nine) incumbents, who were holding obsolete posts out of the 27 (twenty seven) posts detected, which included the petitioners but however, there are no materials on record to show that the petitioners were indeed served with the notice. At the same time, the notice mentioned that the persons named in the notice were to be released from their engagement w.e.f. 01.09.2018, as the posts held by them were found to be obsolete posts. However, the petitioners were released from their services or employment w.e.f., 06.08.2018 vide the impugned orders all dated 06.08.2018, which is only contrary to the notice. One month's salary or Pay in lieu of the one month's notice as contemplated in the Agreement Deed also cannot be said to have been employed by the respondent concerned, inasmuch, as the amount given to the petitioners, as per the impugned orders is towards severance allowance, which is calculated by multiplying half monthly salary into numbers of years of service rendered. Further, the approval given by the Advisory Committee on the action taken by the respondent No. 4 on downsizing of the employees of the SIRD & PR vide the Minutes of the 48th Meeting of the Advisory Committee only goes to show that the respondent No. 4 was not empowered on its own to issue the impugned orders without the approval of the Advisory Committee. In appropriate cases, no doubt, an expost facto approval can be given but in the instant case, the petitioners were released from their service even without being given a show cause notice. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities have violated the principals of natural justice. Considering the nature of the employment of the petitioners and the number of years they have rendered services, observing of the principals of natural justice cannot be said to be an empty formality. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities have violated the principals of natural justice. Considering the nature of the employment of the petitioners and the number of years they have rendered services, observing of the principals of natural justice cannot be said to be an empty formality. Having said that, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders by which, the petitioners were released from services are not sustainable in law and they are accordingly set aside. 28. The respondent authorities are directed to re-instate the petitioners with a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As for the entitlement of back wages of the petitioners, the same is left to the respondent authorities to decide which should however be done in accordance with law. 29. Having interfered with the impugned orders by which, the petitioners were released from service, it will not be necessary to examine and decide the case of the petitioner No. 3 in WP(C) No. 40/2019. It is seen that vide order dated 22.03.2019, this Court while issuing notice of motion passed an interim order to the effect that the respondent authorities will not take any coercive steps against the petitioners pursuant to the passing of the impugned Eviction Notice dated 21.02.2019. The said interim order has continued since then as the State respondents have not applied for vacation of the interim order. As such, WP(C) No. 40/2019 is disposed of by making the interim order dated 22.03.2019 absolute. 30. Under the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.