HIRDAY RAI Vs. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ applications involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In this writ application the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise their services and also for restraining them from making appointment on the basis of advertisement dated 12th October, 1991 and 7th October, 1991. According to the Petitioners they have been working on daily wages as casual labourers and as they have completed more than 240 days continuously in the service of the Respondents University, they have acquired legal right to get their services regularised.

(3.) Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that University has regularised the services of various persons. Our attention has also been drawn to an office order dated 18.10.1987 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel submitted that they had been called for interview whereafter they have been appointed on various posts in terms of office order dated 8.4.1987 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that the Officer-in-charge of Horticultural Research Station has also granted certificate to the effect that the Petitioner had been working which are contained in Annexures-4 & 5 series of the writ petition.