JUDGMENT By Court. - The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following directions:- (i) “For commanding upon the Respondents specially the respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioners and for considering their cases for regular appointment with all consequential benefits considering the fact that the petitioners are working since 1983, 1984 & 1985 respectively and even after giving assurances before this Hon'ble Court for considering the matter of regularization of the petitioners, the Respondents most arbitrarily while adopting the pick and chose method have regularized and appointed several similarly situated persons, even outsiders but have deliberately left the petitioners without assigning any reasons. (ii) For commanding upon the Respondents to show cause as to how and under what circumstances the other similarly situated persons have been regularized and even outsiders have been given appointment overlooking the job suitability, experience and continuous service rendered by the petitioners since last 30 years without any break. And/ or The petitioner further prays for passing of such other and further order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that, the petitioners were engaged on daily wages as Casual Grade-III employee on vacant post between 1983 and 1985. The petitioner no.2 and other similarly situated employees preferred C.W.J.C. No.1260 of 1989 (R), which was disposed of on 29.08.1989 with a direction to the respondents to consider regularisation/absorption of the service of the employees giving preference to the work experience. As the petitioners were not absorbed in service, they moved the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2839 of 1999 (R). In the meantime, the respondents issued Advertisement No.02 of 2000 inviting applications for appointment on various posts. The petitioners also applied for appointment on the post of Correspondence/Accounts Clerk. Since, the process of selection had been initiated, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 29.03.2001 with a direction to the respondents to give preference to the petitioner as mentioned in the advertisement itself and also to give weightage and preference to the daily wages employees. The petitioner preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 911 of 2001 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2003. The petitioner preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 911 of 2001 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2003. Since, the persons having lesser qualification and experience compared to the petitioners were appointed and the claim of the petitioners was ignored, the petitioners were constrained to move this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6154 of 2003. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents regularised the services of one of the writ petitioners namely, Md. Israful. The petitioners, in the meantime, issued another advertisement being Advertisement No. 01 of 2008 inviting applications for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of on 16.03.2010 directing the respondents-University to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and to accord preference to the petitioners in respect to their job experience and continuous service rendered during the past several years as daily wage employees. The respondents again appointed 18 persons on Class-III posts however, the petitioners have once again not been appointed/absorbed in service. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, taking the plea that the petitioners were not appointed on the sanctioned vacant posts under Birsa Agricultural University. Since the petitioners did not compete in the merit, the selection committee did not select both the petitioners and therefore, they could not be absorbed in service. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as under:- 13. “That the Respondents in utter disregard in the clear cut directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in CWJC No. 2839/99 (R) appointed as many as 53 persons including eleven writ petitioners of CWJC No. 2839/99 (R) and outsiders. 14. That since the selection/ appointments have been made on the basis of formal interviews, persons having lesser qualification, experience and merit than the petitioner had been regularized but the petitioners had been discriminated in the matter of appointment/regularisation.” 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4, the statements made in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 in the writ petition are answered as under:- 23. “That in reply to para13 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that it is a matter of record, hence requires no comments. 24. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4, the statements made in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 in the writ petition are answered as under:- 23. “That in reply to para13 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that it is a matter of record, hence requires no comments. 24. That in reply to para14 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that this as per given direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the respondent complied the order after following the procedure. Selection Committee prepared a penal but the petitioners were not selected by the Selection Committee.” 7. In the writ petition, the petitioners have contended as under:- 23. “That to the utter surprise to the petitioners, the Respondents again acted in most arbitrary fashion and while adopting absolute pick and choose method and ignoring the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 16.03.2010 appointed 18 persons on Class-III post i.e. Forest Overseer and only one of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 6154/03 namely Md. Kafil Ansari has been appointed and other persons including the petitioners have left out without assigning any reason. 24. That out of the total 18 persons so appointed by the aforesaid advertisement, only one person found place among the list of writ petitioners, whereas four persons were appointed who were working as daily wages employee on season basis and one other person who was working as daily wages employee on casual basis was appointed. However, the petitioner who are working on daily wages employees since last 30 years without any break have not been considered without assigning any reason or basis.” 8. In the counter-affidavit, the statements made in paragraph nos. 23 and 24 in the writ petition have been answered as under:- 30. “That in reply to para 23 & 24 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that these are matter of record. However, the petitioners' statement is wrong and denied by the respondents that as per qualification, experience along with subjective satisfaction, the selection Committee selected six persons on different vacant posts.” 9. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under:- 26. “That the Respondents have given appointments to several outsiders as many as 17 in nos. and while doing so the Respondents have given complete goby to the specific direction of this Hon'ble Court. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under:- 26. “That the Respondents have given appointments to several outsiders as many as 17 in nos. and while doing so the Respondents have given complete goby to the specific direction of this Hon'ble Court. The entire selection has been made on pick and choose basis and without giving any weightage to the job suitability, experience and continuous service of the petitioners since last 27 years. 27. That there has been no written examination and only an interview was organized by the Respondents in the name of selection procedures under Advertisement No. 01/2008. In the said interview the so called interview Board simply asked from the petitioners as to whether they had moved before the Hon'ble Court for their regularisation, besides that the name and length of service was asked by the interview Board. In such circumstances it is very difficult to imagine as to what lead to the conclusion that the petitioners are not fit for regularisation. As a matter of fact that the entire selection process was simply an eye wash and just to impress upon this Hon'ble Court the Respondents have appointed one of the petitioner of previous writ application on Class-III post and five others on Class-IV post. 28. That all the petitioners are working on the post Field Overseer i.e. Class-III post since 198385 and considering their experience and length of service the Respondents were supposed to regularize the petitioners in the light of order dated 16.03.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6154/2003, however just to fulfill the quorum the Respondents have appointed only one person among the writ petitioners and filed up 17 posts from outsiders on pick and choose basis.” 10. In the counter-affidavit, the statements made in paragraph nos. 26, 27 and 28 in the writ petition have been answered as under:- 31. “That in reply to para25, 26 & 27 of the writ petition, the answering respondents deny and dispute the same and also say that it is a matter of record. 32. That in reply to para28 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that the contradictory statement by the petitioners along with misleading to the Court. The petitioner did not annex any document for evidence and proof of statement. However, as per record, the petitioner number 1 was casual worker engaged as diarist. 32. That in reply to para28 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that the contradictory statement by the petitioners along with misleading to the Court. The petitioner did not annex any document for evidence and proof of statement. However, as per record, the petitioner number 1 was casual worker engaged as diarist. But there is no such sanctioned post in the University and the petitioner number 2 was engaged on humanitarian ground for different work in the Birsa Agricultural University time to time. However, the petitioner did not annex any supporting document which support to his stand.” 11. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under:- 34. “That the petitioners posses requisite qualification, better or at least equivalent and they are better experienced than the persons who have been given appointment/regularisation as their date of joining is in the year 1983, 1984 & 1985 thus, Respondents have discriminated with the petitioners in the matter of appointment/regularisation and their entire action is in teeth of the Hon'ble Courts order as per which the petitioners were supposed to be preferred. It may be relevant to state that admittedly the selections/ appointments have been made only on the basis of formal interviews and not on the basis of any written test, thus the question of ousting the petitioners in spite of their having better/equivalent qualification and better experience is thoroughly unlawful and illegal. 35. That Respondent authorities in utter disregard to the clear speaking observation of this Hon'ble Court passed in CWJC No. 2839/99 (R) and without disclosing the criteria of selection appointed 17 persons from outside ignored the petitioners who are working on the same post in the University since last 30 years. 36. That the petitioners have been discriminated in the matter of appointment because less experienced and less qualified persons than the petitioners have been given appointment without any basis.” 12. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4, the statements made in paragraph nos. 34, 35 and 36 in the writ petition are answered as under:- 38. “That in reply to para34 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that in the case of Uma Devi, as directed by Hon'ble Court, the respondent has already followed the procedure to regularize the service of casual workers but the petitioners could not be selected in merit. 39. “That in reply to para34 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that in the case of Uma Devi, as directed by Hon'ble Court, the respondent has already followed the procedure to regularize the service of casual workers but the petitioners could not be selected in merit. 39. That in reply to para35 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that the Contempt Case No. 714/2010, 717/2010 and 720/2010 are self explanatory. In view of aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Court has found that no reason to entertain the contempt application and hence the same is dismissed.” 13. A perusal of the documents on record indicates that, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons approached this Court on earlier occasions and this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their regularisation or absorption on the vacant sanctioned posts. The proceeding in C.W.J.C. No. 1260 of 1989 (R) indicates that when several other persons were regularised/absorbed in service, the petitioner no.2 and others moved the Court in which this Court has passed the following order:- “If, however, there are sanctioned posts against which the petitioners' services can be regularised or absorbed their cases shall be considered along with the cases of others similarly situate keeping in view the job suitability, qualification, experience etc. and other things remaining equal all or any of them in order of seniority shall first be regularised in service or absorbed before any one junior to them/him and done.” 14. Relying on order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1260 of 1989 (R), another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2839 of 1999 was filed seeking a direction for regularisation of service against regular post. On the statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondent-University that an advertisement has already been issued on 09.04.2000 and the University has decided to give age relaxation and preference for experience to the employees working on daily wages, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- “Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with direction to the respondents to consider the case of such petitioners, who applied in pursuance of Advertisement no. 2/2000, for one or other post and give preference as mentioned in the advertisement. 2/2000, for one or other post and give preference as mentioned in the advertisement. If the question of preference amongst two sets of employees or outsiders is arises, the petitioners, who are working in the University, will get preference over the employees working under the State Government or any other organisation or outsiders, if they are equally situated. Similarly, it will be open to the University to give weightage to its daily wage employee on the basis of their total experience.” 15. A contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 911 of 2001 was filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 29.03.2001, which was disposed of on 17.02.2003 in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent-University that the process of selection would be completed within two months. As the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ proceedings were not complied with and the claim of the petitioners was ignored, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6154 of 2003. In view of the fact that a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent-University, the writ petitions were disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent-University to give preference to the candidates including the petitioners in respect of their job experience and continuous service rendered during the past several years as daily wage employees. The petitioners again applied and participated in the selection process however, they were again left out and therefore, the petitioners again approached this Court by filing Cont. Case (Civil) No. 717 of 2010 which was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2012 holding that, merely because the petitioners were not selected by the interviewing committee, it would not tantamount to willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 16. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that this Court in earlier proceedings has directed the respondent-University to give age relaxation and benefit of experience and continuous service rendered by the petitioners in past several years as daily wage employees. It also appears that the respondent-University itself made a statement before this Court that benefit of past service would be given to the present petitioners. I further find that in the counter-affidavit, the respondent-University has not disclosed any reason why the petitioners have not been selected. It also appears that the respondent-University itself made a statement before this Court that benefit of past service would be given to the present petitioners. I further find that in the counter-affidavit, the respondent-University has not disclosed any reason why the petitioners have not been selected. The specific allegations made in the writ petition that, less meritorious persons having lesser experience than the petitioners have been selected and the petitioners have been discriminated, have not been denied or disputed by the respondent-University. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the persons who have been selected are better suitable candidates. I further find that in view of the continuous past services of the petitioners, an inference can be drawn that the petitioners are suitable candidates for being absorbed. From the documents on record, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioners has been ignored arbitrarily. I further find substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the persons who have been illegally appointed do not have any vested right on the post on which they have been selected ignoring the claim of the present petitioners. 17. In “Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah” reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 32. “We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. 33. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. 33. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. It is open to the authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged.” 18. As the petitioners have been agitating their claim since, 1989 and they had to approach this Court on five occasions, no useful purpose would be served by giving a direction to the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioners for their absorption/regularisation. 19. From the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have been illegally denied appointment and they deserve an order for regularisation of their services and therefore, I hereby direct the respondent no.3 to appoint the petitioners on the post for which they had applied. The order of the Court should be complied with within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.