JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition was filed on August 1, 1988 by nine Class IV employees of the respondent working on daily wages for quashing the order dated July 11, 1988 by which they were appointed along with others on daily wages @ Rs. 14/- per day with the direction that controlling officer will not keep them beyond July 31, 1988 unless there was an order to the contrary and for directing the respondent to reinstate them in case the order Annexure 6 has been executed and also for directing the respondent for making payment to the petitioners and providing facilities and other allowances as are being given to other regular Class IV employees. 2. The petitioners' case is that they are in continuous service of the respondent to the entire satisfaction on daily wages since 1985/1986/1987 (dates mentioned in the Schedule 'A' attached to the writ petition). Their terms of appointment were being extended by orders Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4. 3. In reply the respondent has stated that joint writ petition is not maintainable, they have not completed 240 days as they are re-appointed on July 11, 1988, they are not performing the same duty and having the same responsibility as regularly appointed persons have, regular selection will be made against substantive vacancies after calling the list from the Employment Exchange, a list would be prepared in which the names of the petitioners would also be included and the petitioners may appear before the selection committee, they are not entitled to the same wages and facilities which are being given to the regular Class IV employees and the petitioner No. 8 Krishna Gopal is not in service with effect from April 8, 1987. 4. On August 1, 1988, the respondent passed on order Annexure 6-A extending the service of the petitioner till August 31, 1988. On this ground, an application for the amendment of the writ petition was moved for quashing it. On July 31, 1990, the petitioner moved second stay application with the allegations that the respondent is conducting interview on August 11, 1990, the petitioners have been called to appear before the interview committee and there is no necessity of conducting interview for regularisation of their service. On July 31, 1990, the petitioner moved second stay application with the allegations that the respondent is conducting interview on August 11, 1990, the petitioners have been called to appear before the interview committee and there is no necessity of conducting interview for regularisation of their service. It has been prayed that the respondent be restrained from conducting the interview for the purpose of regularisation of their services or in the alternative, the respondent be restrained from terminating their services. In reply dated August 20, 1990 the University admits that interviews were held on August 11, 1990 for filling up the vacant posts of Class IV employees on regular basis, the petitioners were also called and some of them have actually appeared before the interview committee. It has also been stated in the reply that there exist 41 vacancies including 24 vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, there are number of casual workers who are working for greater number of years than the petitioners, all will be absorbed according to merit and available vacancies, it is not possible to absorb all causal employees, the petitioners are being paid the minimum salary of the Grade of Class IV employees and they are not entitled for regularisation of their services. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner No. 8 Krishna Gopal is no more in the service of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the writ petition be dismissed so far as this petitioner is concerned. 6. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners No. 1 to 7 and 9 are working for more than three years. It may be mentioned here that the University has clearly admitted in its said reply dated August 20, 1990 that all the casual class IV employees will be absorbed and their services will be regularised according to the merit and available vacancies. It is also admitted in it that petitioners (except No. 8) are being paid the minimum salary of the Grade of class IV employees. 7. The first question for consideration in this case is whether the University is not required to absorb the petitioners if not found suitable on merit. There is no question of applying the test of merit when the petitioners are in continuous service of more than three years. 7. The first question for consideration in this case is whether the University is not required to absorb the petitioners if not found suitable on merit. There is no question of applying the test of merit when the petitioners are in continuous service of more than three years. If the work and conduct of any of the petitioners would not have been satisfactory, his services would have been terminated legally before completion of 240 days. Even after their absorption in the regular class IV service, it is open to the University to terminate the service of any of them after holding an enquiry in accordance with law. 8. The second question for consideration is as to when the petitioners are entitled for the absorption in the regular Class IV service of the University. It is stated in the said reply dated August 20, 1990 that there are many causal workers who have been working continuously for greater number of the years than the petitioners. Naturally, the other similar employees whose length of service as casual workers is more are entitled for earlier absorption in the regular Class IV service than the petitioners. The petitioners cannot claim priority against them. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed so far as petitioners No. 1 to 7 and 9 are concerned. The respondent is directed to absorb the petitioners (except petitioner No. 8 Krishna Gopal) in the regular Class IV service according to the vacancies available and keeping in view the aforesaid observations regarding similar employees who have greater length of service. 10. The writ petition is dismissed so far the petitioner No. 8 Krishna Gopal is concerned.No order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******