Hon''ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.@mdashNotice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been considered and decided by order dated 2.2.2011, passed in Writ Petition No. 85 (S/S) of 2011, Virendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid position.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Guest Speakers in the Government ITI, Pilibheet in the year 2001 and they had worked in the same capacity till 2007. By order dated 15.9.2007, the services of the petitioners had been terminated in a most arbitrary manner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question with regard to appointment of Guest Speakers was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5676 (SS) of 2007 wherein vide judgment dated 10.1.2008, this Court had issued certain directions with regard to engagement of Guest Speakers, in case the posts are vacant in the other Government ITI''s. In compliance of said judgment, the opposite parties issued a Government Orders dated 18.6.2008 and 23.7.2008.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the opposite parties are not considering the re-engagement of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid Government Orders. He has moved representation dated 25.11.2011, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, which is pending consideration.
6. In view of above, with the consent of parties'' counsel, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2011, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and the Government Orders, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
