The right to consideration for appointment benefits based on prior service is upheld, limited to direct appointments only.

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri. P.V. Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri. M.V. Anandan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – University.

2. The petitioners are stated to have worked with the respondent University as contract labourers on daily wages, as evidenced by Ext. P1. The petitioners state that they continued to work for subsequent periods as well. They further contend that the respondent University has not been providing weightage/relaxation with respect to the earlier experience attained by the petitioners while effecting appointments to casual posts subsequently. It is also submitted that certain other employees had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 38982 of 2015, contending that weightage had not been extended by taking into account their past service in the University. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 30.03.2017, this Court disposed of the writ petition as under:

“In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order, to the extent it takes away the benefit of age relaxation and service weightage to the works who were working on contract/daily wage or through the Co-operative Societies and modified Ext.P5 order to the detriment of candidates like petitioners in the selection for appointment as casual labourers is without authority and hence unsustainable. It is seen that this Court had already stayed Clause 2 of Ext.P6 and on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court in these cases, there was no further selection made for appointment of casual labourers.”

3. The writ petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking the same benefits has also been disposed of by Ext. P7 judgment, in tune with the directions issued in Ext. P6 judgment.

4. Even on the face of the above, the petitioners contend that the University has invited applications from third parties for the supply of casual labourers, as evidenced by Ext. P8 dated 25.10.2023. It is in such circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University submits that the weightage/relaxation as ordered by this Court pursuant to Exts. P5 and P6, insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, would be considered while processing the applications to be submitted in response to Ext. P8 notification or any subsequent notifications issued by the University.

6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the attempt of the University is to deny the petitioners the benefits/fruits of the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P6 judgment.

7. In my opinion, the petitioners herein would be entitled to be considered with reference to the benefits extended to them pursuant to the earlier judgment of this Court only when appointments to the posts of casual labourers are made directly by the respondent University. However, a reading of Ext. P8 indicates that the respondent University has invited applications for the supply of labourers. In situations covered by Ext. P8, strictly speaking, the directions contained in Ext. P7 judgment would not apply, since no direct appointment of casual labourers is being carried out by the University.

8. In view of the above, though the petitioners are not entitled to be considered pursuant to Ext. P8 on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P7 judgment, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to apply for appointment to the post of casual labourers as and when the University invites applications for direct appointment. At that point of time, the directions issued by this Court in Exts.

P6 and P7 requires to be considered by the respondent University.

This writ petition would stand dispo