- (1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following directions: (i) For commanding upon the Respondents specially the respondent No. 2 to regularize the services of the petitioners and for considering their cases for regular appointment with all consequential benefits considering the fact that the petitioners are working since 1983, 1984 & 1985 respectively and even after giving assurances before this Hon'ble Court for considering the matter of regularization of the petitioners, the Respondents most arbitrarily while adopting the pick and chose method have regularized and appointed several similarly situated persons, even outsiders but have deliberately left the petitioners without assigning any reasons. (ii) For commanding upon the Respondents to show cause as to how and under what circumstances the other similarly situated persons have been regularized and even outsiders have been given appointment overlooking the job suitability, experience and continuous service rendered by the petitioners since last 30 years without any break. And/or The petitioner further prays for passing of such other and further order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that, the petitioners were engaged on daily wages as Casual Grade-III employee on vacant post between 1983 and 1985. The petitioner No. 2 and other similarly situated employees preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1260 of 1989 (R), which was disposed of on 29.08.1989 with a direction to the respondents to consider regularisation/absorption of the service of the employees giving preference to the work experience. As the petitioners were not absorbed in service, they moved the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2839 of 1999 (R). In the meantime, the respondents issued Advertisement No. 02 of 2000 inviting applications for appointment on various posts. The petitioners also applied for appointment on the post of Correspondence/Accounts Clerk. Since, the process of selection had been initiated, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 29.03.2001 with a direction to the respondents to give preference to the petitioner as mentioned in the advertisement itself and also to give weightage and preference to the daily wages employees. The petitioner preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 911 of 2001 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2003. Since, the persons having lesser qualification and experience compared to the petitioners were appointed and the claim of the petitioners was ignored, the petitioners were constrained to move this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6154 of 2003. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents regularised the services of one of the writ petitioners namely, Md. Israful. The petitioners, in the meantime, issued another advertisement being Advertisement No. 01 of 2008 inviting applications for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of on 16.03.2010 directing the respondents-University to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and to accord preference to the petitioners in respect to their job experience and continuous service rendered during the past several years as daily wage employees. The respondents again appointed 18 persons on Class-III posts however, the petitioners have once again not been appointed/absorbed in service.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, taking the plea that the petitioners were not appointed on the sanctioned vacant posts under Birsa Agricultural University. Since the petitioners did not compete in the merit, the selection committee did not select both the petitioners and therefore, they could not be absorbed in service.
(3.) Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.;