ORDER Petitioners herein, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 12th October, 1998 bearing U.O. No. EST: WP No. 171:77:86 passed by first respondent vide Annexure-C and the impugned endorsement dated 31st December, 1998 bearing No. EST/El/WP/17177/86 issued by first respondent vide Annexure-E, have presented the instant writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that, the case of second respondent, who is junior to these petitioners has been considered by first respondent-Bangalore University and given promotion and that, the said promotion accorded by first respondent-University is without reference to the direction issued by' the Division Bench of this Court in P. Premraj v Bangalore University for the reason that, these petitioners joined the services of first respondent University between the period from 8th June, 1971 to 15th July, 1981 under regular recruitment. It is the case of petitioners that, the second respondent, who has now been given promotion by virtue of the impugned order and endorsement has joined the services of the first respondent-University on 21st April, 1978 on daily wage basis, much after some of these petitioners joined the services of the first respondent- University. 3. It is not in dispute that, the second respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 17177 of 1986 seeking direction to the respondent University to regularise the services of the second respondent. The said writ petition filed by second respondent was dismissed. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12th October, 1998 in Writ Petition No. 17177 of 1986, the second respondent filed the Writ Appeal No. 4466 of 1995. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 26th June, 1998. The writ appeal filed by second respondent against the University was disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the University was directed to regularise the services of second respondent as 'Assistant' despite the fact that, the second respondent was holding the post of 'Junior Assistant'. Further, the Division Bench observed that, the relief sought for by the appellant-second respondent herein has to be appropriately moulded so that, it does not adversely affect the interests of any other employee or who is not a party to the writ petitioner/writ appeal and would not put any monetary burden on the first respondent-University. 4. Further, the Division Bench observed that, the relief sought for by the appellant-second respondent herein has to be appropriately moulded so that, it does not adversely affect the interests of any other employee or who is not a party to the writ petitioner/writ appeal and would not put any monetary burden on the first respondent-University. 4. In pursuance to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court referred above, the first respondent-University took up the matter for consideration without issuing notice and without affording reasonable opportunity to petitioners and has further proceeded to pass the order dated 12th October, 1998 and issue the impugned endorsement dated 31st December, 1998 giving promotion to second respondent. It is the further case of petitioners that, inspite of the specific direction/observation made by the Division Bench of this Court petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity nor have been issued any notice especially, when petitioners are claiming that, they are seniors to second respondent. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, .the impugned endorsement issued by first respondent-University vide Annexure-E is liable to be set aside and consequently, the order passed by first respondent vide Annexure-C is also liable to be set aside. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order and the endorsement vide Annexures-C and E respectively issued by first respondent, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 6. After careful perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 31st December, 1998 vide Annexure-E and the order passed by the first respondent dated 12th October, 1998 vide Annexure-C, it is manifest on the face of the endorsement and the order that, the first respondent-University has committed an error and material irregularity in passing the impugned order and issuing the impugned communication contrary to the relevant material available on file. It is significant to note that, the second respondent herein had filed the writ appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge, as referred above and the Division Bench of this Court in the said writ appeal, had specifically pointed out that, the Competent Authority should kept in mind that, while allowing the prayer of the second respondent, the relief has to be appropriately moulded so that, it does not adversely affect the interest of others who were appointed along with them or thereafter, and are not party to that litigation. Further, it was observed by the Division Bench that, the second respondent is entitled to be regularised as 'Assistant' with effect from 1st December, 1981 and consequently, the appellant shall be entitled to only notional seniority and notional monetary benefits, in other words, the issuance of the writ would not adversely affect the interests of any other employee and would not put any monetary burden on the respondent-University. Upon his regularisation as Assistant and after getting notional seniority, the appellant is held entitled to consequential promotions and monetary benefits only from the date of the last order of promotion which may be passed within one month from that day. 7. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeal filed by second respondent that, if the first respondent-University wants to give the benefit to second respondent, it should give in such a manner so that, it does not adversely affect the interests of any other employee, and those who are not parties to that litigation and would not put any monetary burden on the respondent-University. Inspite of the said specific observation by the Division Bench, the first respondent-University has proceeded and taken the decision to comply with the direction issued by this Court partially without compliance of the remaining portion of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned order and the endorsement dated 12th October, 1998 and 31st December, 1998 vide Annexures-C and E respectively cannot be sustained. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration afresh by first respondent-University to take appropriate decision, after affording reasonable opportunity to second respondent and petitioners, strictly in accordance with their entry into service, seniority, and in accordance with the regulation of the first respondent-University. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration afresh by first respondent-University to take appropriate decision, after affording reasonable opportunity to second respondent and petitioners, strictly in accordance with their entry into service, seniority, and in accordance with the regulation of the first respondent-University. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioners stands disposed of with the following directions: (I) Writ petition filed by petitioners is allowed; (II) The impugned order dated 12th October, 1998 bearing U.O. No. EST:WP No. 171:77:86 passed by first respondent vide Annexure-C and the impugned endorsement dated 31st December, 1998 bearing No. EST/E1/WP/17177/86 issued by first respondent vide Annexure-E are hereby set aside; (III) Matter stands remitted back to first respondent-University to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 26th June, 1998 passed in Writ Appeal No. 4466 of 1995, after affording reasonable opportunity to petitioners and second respondent and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (IV) Further, petitioners and second respondent herein are permitted to submit their written submission, if any, along with necessary documents to substantiate their case, as to date of entry into service, seniority, etc., within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (V) If such written submission are submitted by petitioners and second respondents, the first respondent-University is directed to receive the same and proceed with the matter in compliance of the direction issued by this Court, as referred above; (VI) Further, it is hereby made clear that, till the first respondent-University takes a decision in the matter, as aforesaid within the above stipulated time, the promotion accorded to second respondent in pursuance of the impugned endorsement and the order dated 31st December, 1998 and 12th October, 1998 vide Annexures-E and C respectively shall not be disturbed. 9. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioners stands disposed of.