L. NIRANJAN KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the petitioners were working as temporary Computer Operators selected through interview by a Selection Committee appointed by the Syndicate of the University of Madras. The writ petitioners were appointed on various dates. The details are as follows : -

(2.) THEREAFTER , the petitioners came across the advertisements in the newspapers on 10.3.1997 and 13.3.1997 calling for fresh applications for filling up the posts of Computer Operator. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 4620 of 1997 for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the said advertisement and for a direction to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners. When the writ petition was pending, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Madras called upon the petitioners. The petitioners claim that the promised the petitioners that as soon as they withdrew the writ petition, their request will be considered and they will be regularized as Computer Operators in the scale of Rs. 5,500 -175 -9,000. The petitioners, therefore, withdrew the said writ petition on 14.9.1998 with liberty to approach the High Court for the same cause of action. According to the petitioners, at that time, many posts of Computer Operator were vacant and so, all of them naturally believed that they would be appointed in those posts. On 1.10.1998, the Syndicate resolved that the nine temporary Computer Operators be absorbed against the existing vacancies of 55 Assistants with effect from 1.10.1998 subject to the following conditions :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would point out to the orders of appointment of the petitioners as Assistants. As regards the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 11654 to 11656 of 2004, the order is dated 5.10.1998 and the relevant clause therein states that he/she will be on probation for a period of two years exclusive of the period spent on leave. The period of probation is liable to be extended, if his/her work and conduct are not satisfactory. With regard to the petitioner in W.P. No. 11657 of 2004, the impugned order reads that the service put in by him as Assistant from 5.10.1998 to 15.202003 has been treated as temporary service. He is also informed that he will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from 16.2.2003 exclusive of the period spent by him on leave.