M.S.LIBERHAN, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.O.C.P. Nos. 725 of 1989 and 290 of 1990 as they arise out of the common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners preferred Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 730 and 746 of 1984 which were allowed on February 29, 1988. The petitioners claim that in the said writ petitions, the following directions were given :- i) that the results of the First Ziladari Examination declared on September 28, 1983 (Annexure P-2 in C.W.P. No. 746 of 1984) and second Ziladari Examination declared on September 17, 1984 (Annexure P-4 in C.W.P. No. 3794 of 1984) were quashed. The Ziledar candidates who were petitioners in abovesaid writ petitions continued in service as Ziledars and as such were entitled to payment of stipend/fixed salary/subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month all through, ii) that the respondents were directed to hold the fresh Ziladari Examination in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 'B' to the Rules read with the Government instructions contained in para 6.6 of the Manual of Administration within a stipulated period of three months and to declare the result within two months thereafter. During this period, the candidates would be entitled to the stipend/fixed salary/subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month; and iii) that the successful candidates would undergo training under the Qanungos in the Land Revenue Department as provided by Appendix 'B' to the Rules and if finally accepted as candidate Ziledars, they would be appointed as officiating Ziledars on probation or Additional Revenue Clerks in the circles to which they would be attached. The names of the persons failing in the examination were to be removed from the list of selected candidates with effect from the date of declaration of the result of the examination. It has been averred in the petition that the respondents have neither paid the subsistence allowance nor have appointed them as Ziledars or Additional Revenue Clerks as directed in the Civil Writ Petitions and are intentionally avoiding to implement the orders of this Court.
(3.) IT was not disputed that the examination was held in terms of the directions of the Court and result was declared as far back as July 9, 1988. In spite of the representations made and legal notice given, the petitioners have not been absorbed in service.;