- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.)The appellants contention is that they were initially appointed on the post of Home Guard and by order dated 01.07.1991 (Annexure-4), they were appointed on the post of Typist and they have served for more than ten years, therefore, their services should have been regularized by the respondents.
(3.)The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated 26.09.2006, considered all aspects of the matter and held that no case is made out for regularization in service and learned counsel for the appellants also could not draw our attention to any of the Rules by which the persons appointed on the post of Home Guard could have been appointed on the post of Typist.