NABO KUMAR BOSE S/O LATE NIRMAL CHANDRA BOSE AND ORS Vs. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 18.2.1998 passed in S.L.P.(C) No. 18594 of 1994 and other analogous Special Leave Petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated a scheme for the Rajendra Agricultural University for filling up the available vacancies of Class-III and Class-IV by giving opportunities to causal employees working in the University for more than a decade to get into regular service. As per the scheme, 35% vacancies had to be filled up from amongst the casual employees who had completed more than 15 years of service. The rest of the 65% of vacancies had to be filled up in usual manner for appointment of regular employees. The left over casual employees, who may not be absorbed against 35% quota, were also given liberty to apply against the 65% quota for regular appointment. If they applied they were to be given 2% marks for their each year of service in the University to a maximum of 30%. 50% marks was fixed for educational and other qualifications and 20% marks was fixed for interview. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that year of completed service will mean 240 days of service in a year ignoring artificial breaks. It further directed that the causal employees who apply against 65% quota shall be given age relaxation upto 50 years subject to their physical fitness. The left out causal employees were to be disengaged. The Apex Court directed this process to be completed within six months.

(2.) It is not disputed that, pursuant to this direction of the Apex Court, the University came up with its first advertisement in 1998 itself. But it appears that the entire vacancies were not filled up on the basis of said advertisement.

(3.) Case of the petitioners, who are also casual employees of the University, is that they had also applied against 1998 advertisement. But, as the University filled up only certain number of posts from the panel prepared on the basis of the said 1998 advertisement, they could not be appointed. The University thereafter published another advertisement in 1999, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 against which also petitioners applied. Apparently, this advertisement was also published in the process of compliance of the orders of the Apex Court. It is not disputed that the University came up with another advertisement in 2000 also. These two advertisements came under challenge before this Court in CWJC No. 8636 of 2000 by a candidate who had applied against 1998 advertisement. There was some interim order in the case and ultimately, in the light of the counter affidavit of the University that the 2000 advertisement was in respect of a particular scheme of Central Government and that they were not going to act of 1999 advertisement, the writ application was disposed of. The University did not act of 1999 advertisement. Therefore petitioners who were applicant for their appointment against 65% quota in terms of the Apex Court order remained in lurch. This Court is informed that the University thereafter issued further advertisements in 2004 and 2005. What happened pursuant to those advertisements is not available on record. However, another advertisement issued by the University as advertisement No. 4 dated 21.4.2008 has been produced on record by the petitioners through I.A. No. 3261 of 2008. This advertisement shows that several posts have been advertised by the University. It also shows that casual employees who had completed 15 years of service on 18.2.1998 were also been given liberty to apply against this advertisement and they were exempted from paying the application fee. However, in this advertisement it is mentioned that maximum age of causal employees should not be more than 50 years as on 21.5.2008. These stipulations in this advertisement show that the University was going to consider cases of those causal employees who were covered under the said scheme formulated by the Apex Court.