AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar
IA. No. 705 of 2010
In this I.A., intervenors challenged the appointment of petitioners, which according to me is a separate issue. Thus, if intervenors so desire may file separate writ application challenging the appointment of petitioner. Accordingly, mis I.A. is dismissed.
W.P. (S) No. 6115 of 2005
This application has been filed for issuance of direction commanding the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date of their initial appointment.
It appears that petitioner no. 1 appointed on the post of Library Peon, petitioner no. 2 appointed as library Assistant, petitioner nos. 3,6,7,8,9,10,13 & 14 were was appointed as Lower Division Assistant, petitioner no. 4 appointed as Peon, petitioner no. 5 appointed as Store Keeper and petitioner no. 11 appointed as Library Assistant in between 1977 to 1980 by the Principal of Marwari College Ranchi. It further appears that Marwari College Ranchi become constituent college in the year 1980.
A counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. At paragraph no. 9 of aforesaid counter-affidavit, it is specifically mentioned that petitioner nos. 1 to 11 were appointed against unsanctioned post prior to takeover of college, while petitioner no. 12 to 14 were appointed by Principal, Marwari College Ranchi. It is further stated that according to Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act Principal has no authority to appoint anyone in the absence of sanctioned post. It is further stated that College administration/Governing body of the College is required to take approval by the University on the appointment, but the same was not taken. Accordingly, it is stated that petitioners are not entitled to be regularised from the date of their initial appointment and/or from the date when College become constituent as their initial appointment was illegal, It is however admitted that petitioners'' services regularised w.e.f 1.8.1993, when sanctioned post become available.
It is worth mentioning that after filing of aforesaid counter-affidavit petitioners filed supplementary-affidavit on 26.8.2009, but they have not disputed aforesaid statement made by the University. Thus, petitioners also admits that on the date of appointment, as well as on the date when college become constituent, there were no sanctioned post against which petitioners were appointed.
In view of aforesaid factual position I find that the Principal of the College has no authority to appoint petitioners hence their appointments are illegal. Thus, I find no ground to issue direction to the respondents for regularisation of petitioners services.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, that during pendency of writ application, respondents considered the case of petitioner no. 12 and has given him relief, therefore, petitioners may also be given liberty to file representation. Under the said circumstances, if petitioners so desire, may file representation before Respondents for redressal of their grievances. If such representation is filed, respondents dispose of the same in accordance with law.
For the reasons stated herein above, I find no merit in this writ application, same is accordingly dismissed.