M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions involve common question of fact and law thus are decided by this judgment. The writ petition bearing CW 3485/2002 was filed on 17.5.2002, whereas, other writ petitions were filed in the year 1999 and 2012. For convenience, facts of CW 3485/2002 are taken.
(2.) BY the aforesaid writ petition, a challenge was made to the order of appointment dated 15.4.1995, 12.12.1995, 15.12.1995, 29.11.1997, 10.7.1998, 20.2.1999 and 15.3.1999 with a further direction for regularisation of services of the petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners were employed by the respondents university some where in the year 1987 -88. The respondents took a decision on 31.10.1988 to continue services of the petitioners. It was followed by screening test of 40 candidates for regularisation which include even petitioners. The result of which was not declared by the respondents. The services of the petitioners were thereafter terminated in the year 1989. The petitioners challenged the order of termination by maintaining a CW No. 489/1989. This court issued direction for conducting an enquiry by the District Judge, Ajmer. The enquiry report was submitted giving out that petitioners have already worked for more than 240 days and there was no collusion with any of the officer of the university to continue their services. The respondent university, in the meanwhile, advertised 60 posts on 31.12.1993. The court passed an interim order to reserve 20 posts for the petitioners. The writ petitions were finally decided vide order dated 9.3.1994. An appeal was preferred and decided on 20.9.1994 with a direction to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages. The university then preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided on 25.10.1994. The judgment passed by the Division Bench was modified. The direction was to give Rs. 15000/ - to each of the petitioners as ex -gratia compensation apart from two chances to participate in the future selection for the post of LDC or equivalent post without disqualifying them on the ground of age.
(3.) AFTER the aforesaid judgment, respondents should have conducted regular selection for the post of LDC or equivalent post but they issued an order dated 15.4.1995 to grant temporary appointment to the ex army personnel. The respondents thereafter given appointment to 20 persons on 12.12.1995 in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondent university even allowed those who were given ad hoc appointment to work as LDC/Telephone Operator. They even regularised services of 4 ad hoc employees on 29.11.1997. No advertisement was issued by the respondents to make selection as was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents then issued an advertisement on 21.1.1998 to fill -up 20 posts. The petitioners then filed CW 800/1998 to challenge the advertisement and ad hoc appointment of 8 employees. The respondents thereby designed their action in a manner so that petitioners may not get opportunity to appear in the future selections, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They filled the post either by way of ad hoc appointment or by regularisation of services of ad hoc appointees and, thereby, on 10.7.1998, they regularised services of 4 employees. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued a direction to abolish 23 posts of LDC thus recruitment so initiated in the year 1998 could not be given effect. The respondents, however, issued an order on 20.2.1999 for appointment of 2 candidates by holding special test thus they flouted the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents even extended the period of temporary appointees from time to time so as to avoid new recruitment. The writ petition so preferred by the petitioners in the year 1998 was thereafter dismissed treating it to be infructuous. The petitioners thereafter preferred a Special Appeal bearing No. 62/2000. The said appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the post having been abolished thus no relief can be granted, however, challenge to the process of regularisation was kept open. A liberty was given to make representation for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioners thereafter made a representation on 19.4.2002 but even after reminder, no reply was given thus petitioners preferred this writ petition at that stage.;