S.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation.
(2.) THE petitioners by means of the present writ petition are claiming regularization on different posts as they allege that they are working continuously since 2000 and the opposite parties are bound to consider their claim for regularization. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that some of the petitioners belong to the reserved category i.e. S.C. and O.B.C., but an advertisement has been made with respect to filling up of backlog vacancies of reserved category and the claim of the petitioners is not being considered. The petitioners claim that they may be considered ignoring the age bar and due weightage should be given in regard to their past services.
(3.) IN support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of Yamuna Shanker Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2007 (52) AIC 231 (SC) : 2007 (2) SCC 611, specifically drawing attention of the Court to para 8 of the report whereby the judgment of the High Court has been approved by the Apex Court. It was directed by the Division Bench in the said case that while subjecting the! person concerned for selection process, past services rendered by them will be given due weightage and it was also directed that they were not treated to be overage for the purposes of consideration. In para 12 of the said report the Apex Court held that the conclusion of the High Court in the matter of regularization has been suffering from no infirmity.;