GUPTESHWAR BEDUA Vs. MAGADH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M.M.P. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University.

(2.) By the order impugned as contained in Annexure 16 dated 24-7-2002, services of the petitioners along with others have been terminated.

(3.) According to the petitioners, they were appointed on daily wages to perform the duties of Class IV employees in between 5-8-1980 and 21-11-1984 against the vacant sanctioned posts and they continued to work as such, and, in the meantime, the Advisory-cum-Development Committee of the University took interview of daily wages employees including the petitioners and prepared a select list on the basis of their merit and the same was sent to the University for their absorption and regularisation of their services which included the names of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Pursuant to the merit list prepared by the Advisory-cum-Development Committee, the University regularised the services of four of the daily wages employees ignoring the claims of the petitioners, though persons below in the list were regularised, which would be evident from Annexure 8-A of the writ application and the case of Petitioner No. 4, since she was working with effect from 1980, was also recommended by the Principal of the college for her reguiarisation, but somehow or the other, the petitioners were not regularised. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Government issued resolution vide communication, as contained in Annexure 10 dated 10-5-1991, directing that the employees appointed till 10-5-1986 would be entitled for their adjustment and further ordered to allow such employees, who were working prior to May 10, 1986 beyond the staffing pattern to continue until they are adjusted against future vacancies, while the services of the persons appointed after 10-5-1986 were to be terminated. It is the further case of the petitioners that the University authorities pursuant to a direction of this Court, issued in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9256 of 1995 terminated the services of the petitioners and other persons, whose names were included in the select list prepared pursuant to advertisement dated 5-12-1991.