SANJAY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners, who are three in number, have prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the impugned Letters dated 8th January/ 15/03/1999, as well as the entire selection process, D1.30/31Aug./27 Sept.98 with regard to the filling of the posts of library/laboratory attendants and to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the services of the Petitioners/deem the Petitioners to have been appointed regularly with no break in their service with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and considerations for future promotion in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that the services of the Petitioners have already been terminated as is evident, inter alia, from a reading of paragraph 4 of C.M. No. 5011/1999 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioners were appointed by Respondent No.2, namely Deshbandhu College, Kalkaji, Delhi between 1990-1991 through their Principal on ad hoc basis in Group 'D' as Library/laboratory attendants respectively. It is asserted that this appointment took place in accordance with the rules and regulations of the College. The Petitioners have further submitted that they have more than the basic minimum qualifications required for the posts to which they were appointed and have been working to the fullest satisfaction of the College. They had made a number of unsuccessful representations for their regularisation. Eventually writ Petition No. 1710/1997 was filed which was dismissed by Orders dated 1.5.1998 in the following terms :

(3.) The writ petition is dismissed. The respondents, college, shall be at liberty to respondent to proper method of recruitment by giving and advertisement, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for the same and if found fit, they shall be selected, Dasti. Sd/- K.Ramamourthy J." The above Order was challenged before the Division Bench in L.P.A. 196/1998 and was duly affirmed in the following terms :