Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) All the three petitions were tagged together, having been filed by the same group of the petitioners against the same respondents involving same issues. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) At the outset, it is required to be stated that these petitions filed at the instance of the petitioners are not only vexacious litigations but the petitioners have taken the court for a ride by filing the petitions one after the other, suppressing material facts, and have held the respondents to a ransom under the garb of ex-parte ad-interim orders passed by the court, which shall be demonstrated hereinafter.
(3.) Initially one Sunil Kumar had filed the SBCWP NO. 9533/12, for setting aside the notice inviting tender dated 7.6.12 by which the respondent-college had sought to engage the placement agency. In the said petition, the coordinate bench of this court passed the following order on 10.2.14:- "The petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents that even if the placement agency appoints any other person, preference shall be given to the petitioner and the already existing contractual employees rather than availing the services of the new contractual employees. In other words, the placement agency shall be under compulsion to engage those who were already engaged by the respondents on the same terms and conditions if they want to avail the services of Technician or of any other post.";