JUDGMENT

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions wherein the petitioners have prayed as under:—

i. To Set aside/Stay the advertisement no. 2/2020 dated 13./03/2020 published by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar for the recruitment to various KVC positions.

ii. To stay the advertisement no. 3/2019 dated 28.05.2019 2020 published by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar for the recruitment to various posts.

iii. To direct the respondents not to terminate the petitioners who are working since long more than ten years on the basis of contract basis.

iv. To direct the respondents to give priorities of the petitioners in appointment on the basis of advertisement dated 13/03/2020.

v. To stay the appointment on the basis of advertisement dated 13/03/2020 and 28/05/2019.

vi. The condition of appointments made in the aforesaid advertisement is not binding upon the petitioners.

vii. No age limit is fixed on the petitioners who are working on contract basis.

viii. The appointment must be made on the basis of 35% Kota fixed for the contract basis appointment and 65% kota for direct appointment.

ix. To pass such other order/order, Direction/Directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed on various posts on contractual basis and have been working on the said post for a long period ranging between 8 years to 15 years. An advertisement was issued by the University on 13th March, 2020, for recruitment to various posts which included the posts manned by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have a right to continue on the said post and the said post could not have been filled by way of advertisement. As the petitioners have been working on the said post on contractual period for a long time, they were entitled to de-regularized on the said post. Learned counsel in support of such submission, has taken to this Court to the judgment passed in the case of Dileep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Agriculture University & Ors. decided by a coordinate Bench on 18.12.2014 as well as to an order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 396 of 2015 (Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. The Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur & Ors.) dated 16.04.2015 and to an order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3757 of 1990, dated 16th August, 1990, to submit that the case of the petitioners is covered by the said judgments where orders have been passed for regularization.

4. Taking the statement of the learned counsel at Bar, this Court carefully read the aforesaid three judgments and found that the submission of the learned counsel is wholly misleading. The judgment passed in the case of Dileep Kumar (supra) was also in relation to the same advertisement wherein the issue raised by the petitioners was to grant waitage and relaxation in the advertisement which was considered by the High Court and in the case of Dileep Kumar (supra) the coordinate Bench was examining the case of the petitioners who challenged the age bar laid down in the advertisement and prayed that they should be granted benefit of age relaxation as they were working on contractual basis with the University. The coordinate Bench allowed the said writ petition clarified that the age bar will not applied to the person who had already working in the University and would be limited to only those who are fresh candidates. In the second judgment passed by the Division Bench, a same advertisement was under consideration and claim was also made for regularization. The Division Bench observed that the issue regarding regularization had been taken up by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 18594 of 1994 and Their Lordships have reiterated that 35% vacancy shall be filed up wsith the eligible and qualified casual employ