ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Since the issues and facts involved in the aforementioned two writ petitions are the same, both are being decided by this common order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners herein arises from orders dated 29.03.2024 (Annex.4 in CW-5939/2024) and 31.03.2024 (Annex.3 in CW-6026/2024), pursuant to which the services of the petitioners were terminated from the posts of DDC Helper and Health Advisor, respectively, on the grounds that their contractual period had expired. 3. Relevant facts of the case are that the Rajasthan State Government has initiated the 'Mukhyamantri Nishulk Dava Yojna' (MNDY) and 'Mukhyamantri Ayushman Aarogya Yojana' (MAAY) across the state. Computer Manpower (man with machine) and Health Advisors are required to be deployed under the said schemes. 3.1 Pursuant to the aforementioned projects, respondents, through their letters dated 10.08.2023 and 04.07.2023, placed the present petitioners in the positions of DDC Helper/Health Advisor. Since then, the petitioners have been serving with the respondent department, and their services have been satisfactory. The petitioners have been regularly paid their salaries into their bank accounts after the deduction of PF. 3.2. Subsequently, respondent No. 6 sent a letter dated 29.03.2024 to respondent No. 7, stating that the contract period of the petitioners' services was going to end on 31.03.2024. Thus, in the meeting of RMRS held on 07.03.2024, a decision was taken not to extend the contractual period of manpower (DDC helpers/Health Advisors). Consequently, respondent No. 7 was directed to discontinue the services of the petitioners from the posts of DDC Helper/Health Advisor from 31.03.2024. 3.3. Thus vide letters dated 29.03.2024 (Annex.4 in CW-5939/2024) and 31.03.2024 (Annex.3 in CW-6026/2024), the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondent department and the placement agency without any notice or opportunity given to the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petitions. 4. Against this backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case file. 5. Requirement of issuing formal notices is dispensed with, as no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by the nature of order which I propose to pass. 6. Hence, the present writ petitions. 4. Against this backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case file. 5. Requirement of issuing formal notices is dispensed with, as no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by the nature of order which I propose to pass. 6. From the record appended with the petition, conceded position that emerges is that by office orders dated 28.03.2024 (Annex.5 in CW-5939/2024 & Annex.4 in CW6026/2024) passed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, there were clear directions to the Senior Medical Officer that until an alternative arrangement is be made, the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with. Being their own documents, the respondents cannot possibly deny said two Annexures, supra. 7. And yet, by subsequent office orders dated 29.03.2024 (Annex.4 in CW-5939/2024) and 31.03.2024 (Annex.3 in CW-6026/2024), the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ostensible ground that their contractual period had expired on 31.03.2024. 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration, and keeping the larger interest of the public in mind, who will be affected, as appropriate manpower is essential in the hospital, I am of the view that the CM&HO has taken a correct view. He had accordingly passed the necessary and justifiable administrative orders, ibid, being the competent authority. 9. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.03.2024 (Annex.4 in CW-5939/2024) and 31.03.2024 (Annex.3 in CW-6026/2024) appear to have been passed without due application of mind, and against the larger interest of public health and running and management of the hospital. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 10. The petitioners shall be allowed to rejoin the posts in question with immediate effect upon their approaching the competent authority with a web-print copy of this instant order. 11. It is made clear that setting aside the orders impugned herein shall not be construed as an impediment to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law, in case there is any contemplation of either regular appointment on the posts or if the services of the petitioners are found unsatisfactory, or if there is no requirement of work on the posts in question.