AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI, JJ. - (1.) Heard Sri Rajawat, learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) The State has preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 01.02.2016 on the ground that the respondent-petitioners were not entitled to be considered for regularisation inasmuch as they had not been working during the period as required under The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001.
(3.) Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court that the respondent-petitioners were engaged on 8th of October, 2002 after their services had been dispensed with in September, 1992. Consequently, in terms of the aforesaid Rules since they were not continuing on the date of the commencement of the 2001 Rules, they cannot claim any regularization. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has committed an error in extending the benefit of regularization which otherwise was not permissible in law.;