arbitrary or the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result or it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical. We have no hesitation to hold that in the facts of instant case the impugned action of respondents is blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. In R L. Marwaha v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 31 , it has been held that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The respondents, as noticed above, at one stage had themselves supported the cause of petitioners for granting them permanency of job on the premise of financial comp ulsions faced by it. They preferred contract employments or employments under special policies at initial stage than the recruitments on regular basis for the same reason of financial constraints. Once the courts upheld the contentions of respondents, they cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of petitioners by creating fictional separate class of employees. Noticeably, the respondents have not declared any object for creating such imaginary classification and hence it is difficult nay impossible to find necessary nexus between the intelligible differentia and the object sought to be achieved.
