Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, in response to Ext.P2 notification, whereby the 3rd respondent invited applications to the post of casual labourers, though the petitioners applied, eventually their applications were rejected on the ground that they had been barred by age and that they had been residing beyond the distance prescribed in Ext.P2 notification. At any rate, in course of time, the whole recruitment process has been subjected to writ proceedings before this Court resulting in Ext.P5 interim directions.
3. To overcome the service exigencies, when the W.P.(C.) No. 33772/2014 -2-
respondent University had started engaging certain persons on daily wage basis, the petitioners seem to have submitted Ext.P6 representation to the 3rd respondent seeking the indulgence of the authorities to engage them also on daily wage basis. Seeking the expeditious disposal of Ext.P6, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider petitioners' Ext.P6 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No. 33772/2014 -3-