PRADEEP KANT,R.R.AWASTHI,J - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the State Sri Ashok Shukla and perused the order passed by the Tribunal.
(2.) THE claim of the respondents is that they were arbitrarily ignored from being considered for regularization/regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon in terms of Rule 5 of U.P. Sangrah Anusewak Niyamavali, 2004 and the persons junior to them were considered and were regularized. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the respondents were working right from the years 1984, 1989 and 1996 respectively and that persons, who were placed in the tentative seniority list prepared for the very purpose to consider the regularization of Collection Peons were regularized, whereas the claim of the respondents were not considered.
(3.) THE plea of the State that after the aforesaid tentative list, the final seniority list was prepared in which the names of the respondents were below the persons who were regularized did not find favour by the Tribunal.;