Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, 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, since the petitioners' names were found in the rank list published on 12.11.2009 with an expiry date of 11.11.2012, the petitioners were appointed provisionally as Assistant Grade II in the leave vacancies and deputation vacancies. Later, the petitioners came to be engaged as daily wagers.
3. The record reveals that on an earlier occasion, certain daily wagers, who are said to be similarly placed, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.26602/2012 seeking regularisation of their services. Eventually this Court rendered Exhibit P7 judgment directing the respondent University to regularise the services of the petitioners therein in the category of Assistants. Seeking parity of treatment, the petitioners have approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no differentiating factor as far as the petitioners are concerned and accordingly, Exhibit P7 judgment applies to the petitioners on all its fours.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University has submitted that as could be seen from Exhibit P2, there are many other candidates who are similarly placed with the petitioners and that even while complying with Exhibit P7, the University is required to take various aspects, including the issue of communal roster. He has further submitted that if the petitioners are otherwise eligible, in terms of the directions given in Exhibit P7, the respondent University will be considering their case as well, strictly in accordance with law.
6. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, this Court directs the respondent University to consider the claim of the petitioners, keeping in view Exhibit P7 judgment as well as other eligibility criteria, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv