learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the true facts and evidence available on the record, in the correct perspective, because of which the impugned judgement was not sustainable in law. He further submits that it was not disputed that juniors of the appellants-plaintiffs have been granted the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of length of experience. He also places reliance on an order dated 3.2.1988 passed by the respondent-State vide Annexure D' available at page 267 of the paper book. Referring to Annexure C' at page 265 of the paper book, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Dr. Jagdish was at Sr.No.13, whereas the appellant was at Sr.No.12. Vide order dated 3.2.1988 Annexure D', junior of the appellants was granted the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of experience, whereas similar benefit was denied to the appellants. Thus, the action of the respondent was arbitrary as well as discriminatory. When all these facts were brought to the notice of the court, vide abovesaid C.M.No.503-C of 1989, then the abovesaid order dated 4.4.1989 was passed by this court. He also places reliance on the judgement dated 21.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak in Civil Appeal No.68 of 5.6.1987/17.7.1987 (State of Haryana Vs. Dr. Nitya Nand), whereby the appeal of the State was dismissed and this judgement was not challenged by the State before this court but had been implemented vide abovesaid order dated 3.2.1988-Annexure D'. Placing further reliance on the judgement of this court in Dr. Ravinder Paul Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others , 1979 (2) SLR 645, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgement and decree, by allowing the present appeal.
