Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

FACTS:

2. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Attender in the Stores Department of appellant-college on 31-10-1975 and she was posted to work in the office of appellant-college from 1976 to 25-4-1983, whereafter she was posted in the Stores Department and worked as such from 1983 to 1993. From 1-10-1993 writ petitioner/respondent No.1 has been working as Record Assistant. On 8-2-1993 the appellant-college regularised the services of some of the non-teaching staffs. Writ petitioner/respondent No. 2 was appointed as Attender in the Stores Department on 30-10-1975 and on 1-10-1993 he was posted as Record Assistant to work in the appellant-college. The writ petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5766 of 1996 before this Court to regularise their services on par with their juniors by declaring that the college stores also comes under the management of appellant-college. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4-2-1998 by a learned single Judge holding that the writ petitioners should be treated as if they were appointed by the College for the purpose of administration of the College and the writ petitioners were directed to be absorbed into grant-in-aid posts in the existing vacancies. The said order of the learned single Judge was modified in Writ Appeal No. 257 of 1998 by reason of an order dated 20-3-1998. The third respondent, thereafter, passed the order negativing the claim of the writ petitioners for admission into grant-in-aid posts of Record Assistants on the ground that they were working in the book stores, which was a business organisation registered with the Sales Tax Department, and they were paid out of the profits derived from the sale of books in the Stores.

6. Mr. Raja Ram, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 (writ petitioners in W.P. No. 18195 of 1999) on the other hand would submit that from the records produced by the appellant-college it was evident that the book-store was a part of the institution itself and the persons working in the book-store and the institution were being transferred interchangeably. The learned counsel would contend that after the decision of the learned single Judge the State has already directed that the writ petitioners-respondents be admitted to the aided post with effect from 8-2-1993.

... We do find some justification in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. As noted above, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can take effect only in the clearest cases and in the event of there being any doubt, question of issuance of a Rule even would not arise. In our view, sufficient doubt has been raised in the matter by the learned Government Pleader and in that view of the matter, this application fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

16. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, the learned single Judge, in the impugned order under appeals, has committed a manifest error in holding that the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 5766 of 1996 has been affirmed in appeal. The 3rd respondent, in our opinion, was therefore justified in applying his mind afresh for the purpose of arriving at a finding of fact as to whether the writ petitioners started working in the College with effect from 1-10-1993 or not. In other words, he, having regard to the materials placed before him, was entitled to consider as to whether the period during which the writ petitioners had worked in the book-store should be counted for seniority or not. Although the learned single Judge directed the 3rd respondent to consider the matters afresh and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons, there may not be any doubt whatsoever that the decision taken by the 3rd respondent was, however, subject to the result of the appeal.