Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 137 (ORI)

Padmanava Pradhan v. State of Odisha

2020-07-03

P.PATNAIK

body2020
JUDGMENT : P.PATNAIK, J. In the writ application, the petitioners, who were selected and appointed in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the University vide Annexure-2 dated 26.03.2011 in due process of selection as Executive Assistant on contractual basis have sought for direction to the opposite parties to treat the petitioners to have been appointed against sanctioned post of Junior Assistant and thereby to be treated as regular and further prayer has been made that the advertisement issued by the opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-17 is not to be given effect to until regularization of services of the petitioners against the post of Junior Assistant is made. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in order to fill up the post of Junior Assistant, a review meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 24.06.2008 pertaining to filling up the vacancy of teaching and non-teaching staff of Sambalpur University wherein it was unanimously decided that since 23 numbers of posts of Junior Assistant were lying vacant, such posts were to be filled up by Executive Assistant having computer proficiency through outsourcing on the basic pay of Rs.5000/-per month as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by the Registrar dated 26.03.2011 inviting applications for the post of 15 numbers of Executive Assistant to be filled up presently likely to be increased corresponding to availability of vacancies on contractual basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.5000/-per month. The requisite qualification mentioned in the advertisement was Graduate with 50% marks in aggregate having computer proficiency. In the process of selection one had to appear for written test and successful candidates were to appear in Viva Voce test as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been averred that on 18.05.2012 the Syndicate of Sambalpur University passed a Resolution to fill up 20 numbers of Executive Assistants against 20 number of sanctioned Junior Assistant posts and the Resolution of the Syndicate No.185 dated 18.11.2010 have been annexed as Annexure-3 and 4 respectively. Pursuant to selection, the Registrar, Sambalpur University published the selection list of 20 candidates for appointment to the post of Executive Assistant as per Annexure-5. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed as Executive Assistant pursuant to the said selection. Subsequently, six more persons were appointed by the University from out of the selection as Executive Assistant. Pursuant to selection, the Registrar, Sambalpur University published the selection list of 20 candidates for appointment to the post of Executive Assistant as per Annexure-5. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed as Executive Assistant pursuant to the said selection. Subsequently, six more persons were appointed by the University from out of the selection as Executive Assistant. While so continuing the opposite party no.3 requested the opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 22.12.2012 for adjustment of Executive Assistant against the sanctioned post of Junior Assistant. The Hon’ble Chancellor was also requested to move the State Government for appointment of Executive Assistant against the post of Junior Assistant as evident from Anexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. The Vice Chancellor of Sambalpur University in its letter dated 11.02.2013 addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department highlighting the difficulties faced by the University thereby requesting to allow the University to fill up the vacant post as per Annexure-8 and the same was reiterated by the opposite party No.3 as evident from Annexue-9. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Syndicate Sub-Committee of the University on 31.10.2013 and the Syndicate Sub-Committee recommended that the University should move the Government to permit regularization of the services of the Executive Assistant as Junior Assistant vide Annexure-11. Further, it has been averred that the Syndicate meeting held on 21.11.2013 resolved to absorb the Executive Assistant in the vacant post of Junior Assistant as evident from Anenxure-12 to the writ petition and on the basis of the decision of the Syndicate and by order of the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar, opposite party no.3 vide order dated 21.05.2014 passed an order re-designating the Executive Assistant working in the University as Junior Assistant on temporary basis. The extract of the Resolution passed by the Syndicate meeting held on 13.02.2014, the Office order of the Registrar dated 28.03.2014 and the order indicating the names of the petitioners to have been taken as Junior Assistant on re-designation dated 21.05.2014 have been annexed as Annexures-13 to 15 to the writ petition. Prior to that a request was also made by the Registrar seeking permission to fill up the post of Junior Assistant from amongst the Executive Assistant as per Annexure-16 to the writ petition. Prior to that a request was also made by the Registrar seeking permission to fill up the post of Junior Assistant from amongst the Executive Assistant as per Annexure-16 to the writ petition. It has been further averred in the writ petition that during their continuance an advertisement was issued by the opposite party no.3 for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant against 11 vacancies where the qualification for the post of Junior Assistant is degree with knowledge in computer. The mode of selection is written and computer test for appointment to the post of Executive Assistant having the same qualification and mode of selection was same. Copy of the advertisement has been annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position the petitioners left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy have been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 3. Per Contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.1 assailing the prayer of the petitioner as thoroughly misconceived. In the counter, it has been submitted that the petitioners were engaged as Executive Assistant in Sambalpur University by opposite party no.2 in contravention to Section 22(1) of Odisha Universities Act, 1989 and Rule-7 of Odisha University Recruitment and Promotion of Non-Teaching Employees Rules, 1992. Further, it has been submitted that the proceeding of the Review meeting held on 24.06.2008, wherein it was decided that the post of Junior Assistant lying vacant in Sambalpur University are to be filled up by Executive Assistant having computer proficiency through outsourcing. Violating the decision taken in the meeting the petitioners were appointed in the non-sanctioned posts of Executive Assistants on contractual basis directly by the University. These posts have never been created with due Government approval as required under Section 22 of Odisha University Act, 1989. Further, it has been submitted that as per the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka-vrs-Uma Devi and others reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 which inter alia stipulates that any appointment made against non-sanctioned is an illegal appointment and illegal appointment cannot be regularised in any manner whatsoever. The appointment of the petitioners made against non-sanctioned post shall be considered as illegal and these illegal appointments cannot be regularized against the sanctioned posts. The appointment of the petitioners made against non-sanctioned post shall be considered as illegal and these illegal appointments cannot be regularized against the sanctioned posts. It has been further submitted that the Sambalpur University issued advertisement on 26.03.2011 for recruitment of 15 non-sanctioned posts of Executive Assistant on contractual basis for a period of one year and likely to be extended for further period. Whereas the recruitments to the posts of Junior Assistant in Universities are required to be made by open competitive Examination and the vacancies arising in the cadre of Junior Assistant are required to be notified to all the Employment Exchange within the jurisdiction of the University concerned. Such temporary appointments made for one year or more cannot be considered for regularization as it debarred many eligible candidates who could have applied for the post if open advertisements were adhered to. In view of the same, the very action of the University is a breach of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, it has been submitted that in due consideration of the proposal of opposite party no.3 permission was accorded in Higher Education Department letter dated 03.06.2013 to fill up 11 sanctioned vacant posts of Junior Assistant by following procedure as evident from Annexure-B/1. The cases of the petitioners cannot be considered under the provisions of General Administration Department Resolution No.1066 dated 16.01.2014 for Regular Appointment of existing contractual Group C and Group D employees as the appointments/engagements have not been made against sanctioned posts created with the concurrence of the Finance Department. The extracts of the Resolution of the General Administration Department dated 16.01.2014 has been annexed as Annexure-C/1. Further, the advertisement dated 04.09.2014 under Annexure-17 floated by the opposite party no.3 was in accordance with the provisions of Orissa University Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992. 4. Counter Affidavit has been filed by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 wherein it has been submitted that the petitioners have got no legal or statutory right to the post. The petitioners were engaged as Executive Assistants without any specific commitment from the University authority for their regularization in service at the subsequent time and the advertisement for the post of Executive Assistant under Annexure-1 is clear and categorical and the same is contractual with consolidated salary of Rs.5000/-per month. The petitioners were engaged as Executive Assistants without any specific commitment from the University authority for their regularization in service at the subsequent time and the advertisement for the post of Executive Assistant under Annexure-1 is clear and categorical and the same is contractual with consolidated salary of Rs.5000/-per month. Further, it has been submitted that the Executive Assistant working in the University have been re-designated as Junior Assistant on the recommendation of the Syndicate of the Sambalpur University. Their monthly remuneration has been enhanced to Rs.7100/-per month with effect from 13.02.2014 as per Office order. It has been further submitted that there are 40 numbers of vacant sanctioned posts in the cadre of Junior Assistant and the Executive Assistants were appointed against the sanctioned posts following the ORV Act. The qualification required for the post of Junior Assistant is graduation as per the University Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992. The requisite educational qualification for Executive Assistant was considered as 50% mark in graduation and having computer proficiency. Therefore, the University repeatedly requested the Government in the department of Higher Education for regularization of the services of the Executive Assistants against sanctioned posts of Junior Assistant and released 11 posts. However, the Government in the Department of Higher Education as well as the Office of the Hon’ble Chancellor have requested the University to follow due procedure of recruitment. Therefore, there is no option left for the University than to go for open advertisement following the procedure as per the guideline of the promotion Rules 1992. Further, it has been submitted that the University is running short of man power due to large number of retirement of the employees on superannuation almost every month. Unless fresh recruitment is made as per the Rules and on the advice of the Government as well as the Hon’ble Chancellor it has become extremely difficult to run the University on each passing day and the administration is virtually going to be stand-still. 5. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that since the advertisement issued in Annexure-17 was made in order to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claim for regularization of service, therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant writ application for redressal of grievance. 5. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that since the advertisement issued in Annexure-17 was made in order to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claim for regularization of service, therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant writ application for redressal of grievance. In the rejoinder, it has been stated that the University took the decision to engage Executive Assistant in lieu of the sanctioned strength of Junior Assistant. Accordingly, by following due process of selection and considering the merit appointed the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners have been continuing as Executive Assistant since 2012 and by now have completed more than 8 years of their service. It is incorrect to state that such appointment is in contravention to Section 22(1) of Orissa University Act, 1989 and Rule-7 of the Orissa University (Recruitment and Promotion of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1992. The University vide Office order dated 21.05.2014 re-designated the petitioners as Junior Assistants and communicated the same vide Office order dated 21.05.2014. Further, it has been submitted that this Court in the case of Aditya Narayan Mishra Vs. State of Orissa in OJC No.5179 of 2000 decided on 03.01.2020 settled the law on completion of six years of uninterrupted service, the persons are to be made regular when they are appointed on ad hoc basis and/or contractual basis and the principle laid by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) has been incorrectly understood and applied by opposite party No.1. Further it has been submitted that the selection and appointment to the post of Executive Assistants which was subsequently re-designated as Junior Assistant has been made by way of open competitive examination and by advertisement made in the newspaper as well as website of the University and the same is in conformity with the provisions prescribed under the Orissa University (Recruitment and Promotion of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules 1992. Therefore, the decision of the University appointing the petitioners as Executive Assistant cannot be found fault by opposite party No.1. Therefore, the decision of the University appointing the petitioners as Executive Assistant cannot be found fault by opposite party No.1. Further, it has been submitted that though the nomenclature of the post was Executive Assistant at the initial stage and since the post of Executive Assistant has been re-designated with that of Junior Assistant and the petitioners having been continuing against the sanctioned post are entitled to be regularized in view of the settled position of law. Further, it has been submitted that Annexure-1/A and 2/A, the Resolution dated 12.11.2013 and the Resolution dated 15.02.2014 and Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit do buttress the case of the petitioners for regularization in services. 6. Another rejoinder to the counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the petitioners were duly selected in due process of selection by following the ORV Act and in anticipation of the approval of the State Government appointed them against the post of Junior Assistant. It is submitted that appointment of Executive Assistants was made following the procedure of open advertisement published in the newspaper, i.e., written test and computer test and therefore, it was recommended for regularisation of their services as Junior Assistant. It is further submitted that when the regular posts were available and the petitioners were recruited in due process of selection and have been re-designated as Junior Assistant and by that time they have already discharged their duties for about three to four years and the performance of the petitioners were found satisfactory since no adverse communication has been made against them, therefore, the petitioners were to be made regular. It is also submitted that now the University is running shortage of manpower due to retirement of large number of employees on superannuation almost every month and the University recommended the case of the petitioners, who have acquired experience of more than six years to their credit. Therefore, the action of the State Government is against the interest of the University warranting interference of this Court. 7. Therefore, the action of the State Government is against the interest of the University warranting interference of this Court. 7. Mr.J.K.Rath, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the appointment orders of the petitioners would indicate that such appointments have been made by the University as per the power conferred on the Vice Chancellor under section 21(6) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 as amended from time to time and accordingly such appointment orders have been issued, which is valid and legal made under the provisions of the Statute. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that prior to the appointment of the petitioners in the post of Executive Assistant, the matter was discussed threadbare before the Review committee held by the Government under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 24.06.2008 pertaining to the filling up the teaching and non-teaching post in Sambalpur University. The Government of Odisha in the department of Higher Education in its letter No.22067 dated 08.07.2008 communicated the proceeding of the Review committee regarding filling up the vacancy. Learned senior counsel emphatically submitted that the Review Committee was held at the instance of the State Government and the decision was taken under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the State along with the members present therein. After the decision was taken in the Review Committee meeting the same was duly communicated by the SLO.-cum-Deputy Secretary of the Higher Education department vide letter dated 08.07.2008. Moreover, the appointment of the petitioners were duly approved by the Syndicate vide Resolution dated 18.05.2012 and after such approval the petitioners were issued with appointment order vide order of the Vice Chancellor issued by the Registrar dated 30.05.2012. The learned senior counsel further submitted that since the petitioners were appointed in due process of selection by following the recruitment policy and they were having the requisite qualification and have completed more than eight years of service to their credit. Therefore, they are entitled to be regularized in service. The learned senior counsel further submitted that in the vacancy so caused in lieu of the Junior Assistant of the University, the posts of Executive Assistants were to be filled up, the University took steps to follow the Recruitment Rule as has been prescribed under 1991 Rules. Therefore, they are entitled to be regularized in service. The learned senior counsel further submitted that in the vacancy so caused in lieu of the Junior Assistant of the University, the posts of Executive Assistants were to be filled up, the University took steps to follow the Recruitment Rule as has been prescribed under 1991 Rules. Learned senior counsel also submitted that with due permission of the State Government the petitioners have been continuing against the post of Executive Assistant which was subsequently re-designated as Junior Assistant and such post of Executive Assistant are taken against the regular post of Junior Assistants and the petitioners after being re-designated as Junior Assistants have been continuing for more than eight years by now discharging their duty in the University in due process of selection for more than 20 posts of Junior Assistants are lying vacant till date, besides the posts in which the petitioners have been continuing, there is no impediment on the part of the authorities to treat the petitioners as regular. Further it has been argued that the creation of the post of Executive Assistant has also been accorded by the Finance Department as would be evident from the fact that the Special Secretary to Government, Finance department was one of the members present in the Review meeting held by the State Government dated 24.06.2008 thereby all the conditions prescribed under the Resolution passed by the State Government in General Administration Department having been fulfilled, the petitioners are entitled to be treated as against the Executive Assistant created against the post of Junior Assistant and the petitioners having been re-designated as Junior Assistant, therefore, the petitioners are treated to have been regularized as against the post of Executive Assistants, re-designated as Junior Assistant with effect from the date of their initial appointment as the petitioners have the requisite qualification and they were appointed in regular process of selection as provided under the Statutory Recruitment Rules and with the approval of the State Government in the Higher Education Department and also in Finance Department. 8. As against the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Bikram Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit vehemently submitted that the Universities Recruitment and Promotion of non-teaching Employees Rules, 1992 governs the recruitment of non-teaching employees of the University. 8. As against the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Bikram Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit vehemently submitted that the Universities Recruitment and Promotion of non-teaching Employees Rules, 1992 governs the recruitment of non-teaching employees of the University. Rule-3 of the aforesaid Rule, 1992 provides establishment of Ministerial Employees of the University which includes the post of Junior Assistant but not the post of Executive Assistant in the cadre or in the Rules. Learned State counsel further submitted that Rules 31 and 32 of the said Rules provide that Vice Chancellor of the University may make ad hoc appointments in the posts not covered by the rules and he can prescribe the procedure for appointment in the said post with the approval of the Chancellor, but the said post cannot continue more than 90 days and the said post cannot be adjusted in any post enumerated in the Rules. Learned State Counsel drew the attention of this Court to Rule 7(1) of the said Rules which prescribes the procedure for recruitment of Junior Assistant. Schedule-A prescribes the qualification. For Junior Assistant, the qualification is Degree with knowledge in typing. The appointment of the petitioners in the post of Executive Assistant has been done without prior approval of the Chancellor. Therefore, the petitioners’ appointment being illegal is non-existent in the eye of law. Learned State Counsel further submits that from the Rules, it is clear that (i) In the ministerial establishment there is post of Junior Assistants. (ii) There is no post of Executive Assistant in the said establishment. (iii) The post of Junior Assistant is to be filled up by candidates having degree with knowing of typing. (iv) Whereas the University prescribed to fill up the post of Executive Assistant by candidates having 50% of marks in graduation and computer proficiency. Learned State Counsel also contended that there has been no amendment in Rules re-designating Executive Assistants as Junior Assistant. Therefore, the decision taken in the meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary to fill up the posts of Junior Assistants by candidates with computer proficiency is contrary to Rules. Moreover the decision is not a Government decision and in the meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary, the Higher Education Department is not a participant. Therefore, the decision taken in the meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary to fill up the posts of Junior Assistants by candidates with computer proficiency is contrary to Rules. Moreover the decision is not a Government decision and in the meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary, the Higher Education Department is not a participant. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the decision taken in the meeting chaired by Chief Secretary is a Government decision, is misconceivd. Learned State Counsel further submits that the advertisement made by the University vide Annexure-2 and appointment of Executive Assistant is also contrary to the Rules 31 and 32 which provide appointments in posts not covered by Rules but with prior approval of the Chancellor. In this case there is no approval of Chancellor. The post of Junior Assistant is a cadre post whereas post of Executive Assistant is a non-sanctioned post. Learned State Counsel has referred to the decision reported in 2017 (II) OLR 583 where this Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold that the regularization of the employees working against non-sanctioned post is not permissible under law. Learned State Counsel further referred to A 1936 PC 253 (Nazir Ahamad-vrs.-Emperor, wherein the Hon’ble apex Court has held that if a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular manner then the same has to be done in that manner or not at all. By referring to the aforesaid decisions, the learned State counsel submitted that the appointment of the petitioners being contrary to the aforesaid decision as the same is not done as per the rules prescribed. The learned State counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa and another-vrs.-Mamata Mohanty wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-62 has illuminatively held which is quoted herein below. “It is a matter of common experience that a large number orders/letters/circulars, issued by the State/Statutory Authorities, are filed in court for placing reliance and acting upon it. However, some of them are definitely found to be not in conformity with law. There may be certain such orders/circulars which are violative of the mandatory provisions of law.” 9. Mr.H.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the University has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit. However, some of them are definitely found to be not in conformity with law. There may be certain such orders/circulars which are violative of the mandatory provisions of law.” 9. Mr.H.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the University has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel has also submitted with vehemence that in view of shortage of staff, the advertisement has been issued by the University vide Annexure-17. Therefore, the action of the University cannot be found fault with. Learned counsel has laid emphasis on paragraphs-2, 5 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual exposition and after having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions, the cases of the petitioners deserve consideration for regularization in view of the following facts reasons and judicial pronouncement. (i) Admittedly, all the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement and after undergoing the process of selection were appointed as Executive Assistant on contractual basis since 2012. In the meantime they have completed more than eight years of contractual services against the post of Executive Assistant which has been subsequently re-designated as Junior Assistant on the recommendation of the Syndicate Sub-committee in the year 2013. (ii) Government of Odisha vide Notification dated 16th January,2014 has published a Contractual Rule 2013 wherein on completion of six years of contractual services, one will be eligible for regularization in service. Since the petitioners have completed the requisite period of services, their services ought to have been regularized by the University in the light of the Notification of the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha. (iii) Much has been argued on behalf of the State that initial appointment of the petitioners was against a non-sanctioned post Therefore, regularization of the petitioners against the non-sanctioned post is not legally permissible, but the letter of the Government of Odisha, in the Department of Higher Education dated 08.07.2008 which pertains to the Review committee meeting regarding filling up of the teaching and non-teaching posts in Sambalpur University indicates that the said Review committee meeting was being attended by the members of the Higher Education department, Finance Department and by a conscious decision, the post of Junior Assistant was re-designated as Executive Assistant. Accordingly, the advertisement was published and the petitioners appeared the selection process and they were appointed against the post of Executive Assistant in lieu of Junior Assistant. Subsequently in the year 2013 by virtue of the decision of the Syndicate subcommittee the post of Executive Assistant has been re-designated as Junior Assistant and the petitioners have been continuing against the post of Junior Assistant since 2013 taking into consideration the uninterrupted services rendered by the petitioners against the redesignated post of Junior Assistant and on perusal of the Notification of the State Government regarding regularisation of contractual appointees, it is quite luculent that the petitioners have rendered more than the requisite period of service against the sanctioned and vacant post of Junior Assistant to stake their claim for regularization of services. (iv) So far as regularization of services, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions have succinctly and illuminatively dealt with the concept of regularization. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others-vs.-State of Jharkhand and others : (2018) 8 SCC 238 , in paragraph-7, it was held that “The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in e past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi and Kesari sought to avoid.” 11. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi and Kesari sought to avoid.” 11. On the cumulative effect of the factual aspect coupled with the reasons and judicial pronouncements, rendered in case of (Narendra Tiwari and others (supra), Umadevi and others, and in case of State of Jharkhand and others-vrs.-Kamal Prasad and others (2014) 7 SCC 223 ) the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to pass appropriate order for regularization of services of the petitioners against the post of Junior Assistants as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.