(1.) THE appellant filed a writ petition, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 8442 of 2001,.inspired by the success of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 6665 of 1998. which was concluded by an order dated 7th October, 1999. As the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 6665 of 1998 were initially appointed on daily wage basis, so was the appellant and they after having had worked for sometime were selected by a Selection Committee for being appointed or regularized on the post of Progressive Assistant, a Class - Ill post. Soon thereafter, they were appointed as such by the Regional Directors.
(2.) WHILE they were working, a show cause was issued to them i.e., to the appellant and the petitioners in the said writ petition, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 6665 of 1998, wherein it was stated that the Regional Directors were not authorized to give the subject appointments. After replies were given to such show causes, petitioners in the said writ petition and the appellant too lost their engagement. Petitioners in the said writ petition then approached this Court and brought on record of this Court that since 18 '" March, 1980. the power of the Director remained delegated with the Regional Directors and the same was withdrawn with effect from 28th October, 1991 in respect - to Class -IV employees and with effect from 21th February, 1992 in respect to Class -III employees. It was contended by the petitioners in the said writ petition that inasmuch as they were appointed by the Regional Directors prior to withdrawal of the powers of the Director from the Regional Directors, their appointments cannot be said to be illegal from the very inception as had been held out in the show cause. By the said order dated 7th October, 1999, the said contention was accepted and the orders terminating the services of the petitioners in the said writ petition were quashed.
(3.) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the show cause, appellant was only asked to establish the authority of the Regional Director to appoint and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is an admitted fact that as on the date of appoimment of the appellant. Regional Director was authorized to appoint and as such the matter ought to have been concluded thus and the same having not been concluded in that fashion, we should conclude the matter thus.