(1.) Complaint of the petitioners in this proceeding is that in spite of being empanelled by the University of Burdwan for appointment to the posts of Junior Assistants, their appointment is being withheld illegally. The University authorities had published an advertisement for appointment to different posts, including the posts of Junior Assistants under Advertisement No. 4/2008 dated 10 February 2009. In the said document, styled as "Information Sheet", the posts for which applications were being invited along with qualification criteria for such posts were disclosed. Vacancies in altogether fifteen posts were advertised and number of posts which were vacant also had been specified in respect of fourteen of them, excepting the posts of Junior Assistants, with which the dispute involved in this proceeding is concerned.
(2.) The eight writ petitioners had responded to the advertisement and participated in the selection process for appointment to the said posts. The respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, had also applied for these vacancies. All of them claim to have been placed in the panel. The respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 had applied for being added as party respondents during pendency of this writ petition by taking out individual applications and these applications were allowed. I shall refer to the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 later in this judgment as the added respondents. Their complaint is same as that of the petitioners, and they have supported the case of the petitioners.
(3.) Based on the performance of the respective candidates who had applied for selection, a panel was prepared comprising of 121 candidates for the said posts, out of which 83 candidates were from the general category. In this writ petition, the petitioners as well as the added respondents belong to the unreserved category. The panel was approved by the Executive Council of the University in their meeting held on 9 November 2010. The Council also resolved in that meeting to issue offers for appointment to 47 candidates from the unreserved category, 13 from the SC category 4 from the ST category and 3 from the category of Physically Handicapped (PH) persons from the said panel. The resolution of the Council on this point appears from the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 9 November 2010, a copy of which has been produced by Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel. It is recorded in the said Minutes.