- (1.) THIS appeal questions the correctness of the judgment dated 1.9.2006 delivered by a learned single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents - petitioners has been disposed of with a direction, to give them the benefit of regularisation that was claimed at par with some other employees, who had been extended the said benefit, and the respondents - petitioners stood discriminated.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitts that the directions so given are contrary to law and that in view of the ratio of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1, the directions issued by the learned single Judge cannot be complied with on the facts of the present case. He further submits that regularisation is a matter of rule and the respondents - petitioners, being not covered by any such rule, the mere claim on the basis of employment having been offered to some other persons, cannot be a ground for claiming parity nor can it be sustained legally.
(3.) THE appeal was admitted and an interim order was passed staying the operation of the judgment of the learned single Judge by a Division Bench, which admitted this appeal vide order dated 26.2.2007. Learned Counsel for the respondents - petitioners contends that the direction given was perfectly justified inasmuch as on a consideration of the decision in the case of Uma Devi , the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others, 2007 11 SCC 92, has extended such benefit.;