RAM BILAS MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE batch of cases arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 16851 of 2007 dated 28.10.2010.

(2.) THE main grievance of the appellants is that their cases have not been considered for regularization by the University in spite of the order passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P NO. 18594 of 1994 dated 18.02.1998, where the Apex Court had directed the University to consider the cases of the casual workers and the vacancies of 35 per cent and it has been opined that the balance of 65 per cent casual workers who have not been regularized within 35 per cent quota can be considered for the balance 65 per cent if an advertisement is made. Accordingly, the process of regularization was started in the year 2000. It has been contended before the learned Single Judge that some of the petitioners who are party of the said L.P.A have been regularized but however, the regularization has been made as per the guidelines indicated in the said S.L.P order.

(3.) HOWEVER , in appeal it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that in spite of the order of the University their services were not regularized, and as in the order of the Apex Court it had indicated that the casual employees who had completed 15 years of service had to be regularized but most of the appellants have completed more than 20 years and their cases have not been considered by the University. I.A No. 3673 of 2008 had been filed in C.W.J.C No. 16851 of 2007 indicating that an advertisement no. 4 of 2008 dated 21.04.2008 followed by advertisement no. 5 of 2008 dated 24.04.2008 had been questioned with a prayer for quashing the said advertisement on the ground that the appellants have to be considered as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court passed in S.L.P of 18594 of 1994 dated 18.02.1998 by giving the age relaxation as most of the appellants have crossed the age of 50 years but taking note of the said fact the learned Single Judge however has directed that the appellants in pursuance of the advertisement of 65 per cent quota have to be considered in accordance with their eligibility.