S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order, contained in Memo No. 5861, dated 31st December, 1998, whereby and whereunder, the representation of the petitioners for their regularisation has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioners were working under the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Works Division, Lohardaga. Their services were initially terminated vide order dated 9th July, 1996. A writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 300/97 (R) was preferred by them, wherein this Court, vide order dated 17th August, 1998, given liberty to petitioners to move the authorities who, in their turn, were directed to decide the representation. Though the petitioners stated to have been taken in service on dally wage, but their claim for regularisation having rejected, the present writ petition has been preferred. The respondents in their impugned letter of rejection (Annexure -8), have taken one of the grounds that there was an order to terminate the services of daily wage employees illegally appointed after 1st August, 1985, fide Resolution No. 5940, dated 18th June, 1996. The other ground shown is that there was a ban of appointment in the workcharge establishment made, vide Memo No. 6394, dated 23rd October, 1987.
(3.) SIMILAR plea has been taken in their counter affidavit, though it is accepted that the officials of R.E.O., including the Division where the petitioners are functioning, require employees for proper functioning of the Division.;