C R VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 12th October 1998 bearing U. O. No. EST:wp No. 171:77;86 passed by first respondent vide Annexure C and the impugned endorsement dated 31st December 1998 bearing No. EST/e1/wp/17177/86 issued by first respondent vide Annexure E, have presented the instant Writ Petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that, the Case of second respondent, who is junior to these petitioners has been considered by first respondent -Bangalore University and given promotion and that, the said promotion accorded by first respondent-University is without reference to the direction issued by the Division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 4466/1995 dated 26th June 1998 for the reason that, these petitioners joined the services of first respondent -University between the period from 8th June 1971 to 15th July 1981 under regular recruitment. It is the Case of petitioners that, the second respondent, who has now been given promotion by virtue of the impugned order and endorsement has joined the services of the first respondent-University on 21st April 1976on daily wage basis, much after some of these petitioners joined the services of the first respondent -University.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that, the second respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 17177/1986 seeking direction to the respondent-University to regularize the services of the second respondent. The said Writ Petition filed by second respondent was dismissed. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 12th October 1998 in Writ Petition No. 17177/1986, the second respondent filed the Writ Appeal No. 4466/1995. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 26th June 1998. The Writ Appeal filed by second respondent against the University was disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the University was directed to regularize the services of second respondent as 'assistant' despite the fat that, the second respondent was holding the post of 'junior Assistant'. Further, the Division Bench observed that, the relief sought for by the appellant -second respondent herein has to be appropriately moulded so that, it does not adversely affect the interests of any other employee or who is not a party to the Writ Petitioner/writ Appeal and would not put any monetary burden on the first respondent -University.