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, the 1st and 2nd petitioners are said to have been working as Processing Associates, and the 3rd respondent as Plant Operation Associate, in the Department of Live Stock Production Technology (Meat Technology Unit) of the respondent University. Complaining of denial of absorption, though they have been working since more than a decade, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court which resulted in Ext.P6 judgment, whereby this Court directed the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation.
W.P.(C) No.28727 of 2014 2
3. In compliance with the direction of this Court in Ext.P6, it appears the Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Live Stock Production Technology (Meat Technology Unit) recommended the petitioners' case through Ext.P9 for absorption. Though it was forwarded on 25.01.2014, the University so far has not taken any decision. In that context, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University has submitted that the respondent University would be taking all steps to consider Ext.P9 recommendation made by the Head of the Department concerned, especially in the light of direction given by this Court in Ext.P6. In the light of such submission, any necessity of adjudication of the issue on merits is obviated.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, without advert to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to consider Ext.P9 recommendation, in accordance W.P.(C) No.28727 of 2014 3 with law, as expeditiously as possible,at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj