( 1 ) THE petitioners are the ex-casual labourers. On an earlier occasion, they had filed W. P. No. 407 of 1996 in this Court. When that writ petition came up for hearing, it was conceded by the Counsel appearing for both the sides that the said writ petition was squarely covered by the Order of this Court in W. P. No. 13560 of 1993, dated 7-10-1993. In view of this submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court disposed of the writ petition on 29-3-1996 issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regular appointment to the eligible posts in accordance with the Memorandum No. l 138/85-1, dated 26-8-S985, if they are eligible.

( 2 ) THE petitioners complaining that as per the direction of the Court though they were interviewed, till date their services are not absorbed and nothing was heard from the respondents, filed the instant writ petition seeking intervention of the Court.

( 3 ) IN response to rule nisi, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that in pursuance of the Court s direction, the Selection Committee constituted by the respondents in terms of B. P. Ms. No. 95, dated 17-7-1997 conducted the interview on 8-12-1997. The reason given by the respondents not to absorb the services of the petitioners in terms of Memo No. l 138/85-1, dated 26-8-1985 is that under B. P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-5-1997, the services of the ex-casual labourers could be absorbed only against 50% of the existing vacancies in the initial recruitment categories and since the petitioners turn for appointment against 50% vacancies did not come up, their services were not absorbed. It is also stated that all the vacancies against 50% of the quota were already filled up by persons possessing higher merit.

( 4 ) THE question that falls for consideration is whether the claim of the petitioners for absorption of their services in the service of the respondent in terms of Memo No. l 138/85-1, dated 26-8-1985 could be rejected on the ground that they did not come up to the cut off merit by applying the provisions of B. P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-5-1997. There is no controversy and there cannot be any controversy between the parties that the petitioners claims have to be considered in terms of the guidelines contained in Memo No. 1138/85-1, dated 26-8-1985 as per the directions of this Court in WP No. 407 of 1996 and the said decision has admittedly become final. It is also admitted position that the guidelines contained in Memo No. 1138/85-1, dated 26-8-1985 do not restrict the appointment of ex-casual labourers to 50% of the existing vacancies. However, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is that this Court disposed of WP No 407 of 1996 only on 29-3-1996 and the petitioners were interviewed on 18. 12. 1997 by the Selection Committee, that is to say, after B. P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-5-1997 came into force and therefore the restriction relating to filling up of the posts against 50% of the vacancies specified in B. P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-5-1997 would equally apply to the petitioners cases. I do not think the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is well founded. I say this because the relevant date with reference to which the petitioners claim have to be examined is the date on which the petitioners acquired the right to be considered. As pointed out supra, the petitioners acquired the right to be considered for absorption of their services being the ex-casual labourers on 26-8-1985 under the Memo No. 1138/85-1, dated 26-8-1985 and not under the B. P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-5-1997. Secondly, even before B. P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-5-1997, issued by the respondent, the petitioner made grievance before this Court and this Court also disposed of the writ petition issuing necessary direction noted above before 18-5-1997. The learned Standing Counsel would maintain that after the disposal of the