The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions have come up with these contempt cases alleging that the direction in the impugned judgment for considering them for appointing provisionally had not been taken care of by the respondent University.
2. This Court, by judgment dated 20.06.2014, had directed the Government to frame rules regarding the syllabus and other matters. Since the petitioners were working in the institution for years provisionally, the respondent University was directed to consider them for appointment provisionally till a final decision is taken in the matter by the Government.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the selection procedure was over and selected candidates were issued with appointment orders CO(C) Nos. 844 & 846 of 2014 ..2..
as early as on 03.06.2014 and the petitioners were aware of all the facts and there is no justification in invoking the contempt of court jurisdiction.
4. Arguments have been heard.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University would submit that even before the judgment was pronounced, the appointments were made for the current academic year; and therefore, there is no willful laches on the part of the respondent.
As the procedure for selection of provisional hands during the current academic year is over, this Court is of the view that the contempt cases can be closed with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners during the next academic year without fail.
With the above observation, the contempt cases are closed.
bka/-
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE