AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—In this writ petition, the prayer made by the Petitioner is for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct
the Respondents to give appointment to the Petitioners, in pursuance to their selection as Office Assistants.
It is not in dispute, that t the Petitioners were duly selected, and were not appointed, due to pendency of litigations in Courts.
Now, the stand taken by the Respondents, to deny the right of appointment, to the Petitioners is that t the posts, against which the Petitioners
were selected, have been filled up, by regularizing the services of daily wage employees.
In view of the stand taken by the Respondents in Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the Petitioners want to withdraw this writ petition, to
challenge the appointment of persons, to the posts, against which the Petitioners already stood selected, and were not appointed, due to Court
proceedings.
The Petitioners a re permitted to withdraw this writ petition, with liberty to challenge the order, regularizing the services of other persons, against
the posts against which the Petitioners were selected.
It is made clear, that t it will be open to the Petitioners, to raise all the pleas, including the pleas raised in this writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos. 2 and 3 of 2008 a re closed.