Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed by the petitioners is admitted to record.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioners pray for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize their services. The grievance of the petitioners is that their case for regularization has not been considered by the opposite parties, though they have served the department for more than two decades and were working on the cut off date as provided in the U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that denial of benefit of regularization for which the petitioners are legally entitled, are highly arbitrary, unjustified and causing great injustice to the petitioners. Further, he submits that the petitioners have rendered several long years of service. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have rendered several long years of service but they have not yet been been regularised, whereas persons junior to them have been regularised. It is not disputed that the petitioners were engaged during the period 1984-86 and were working on the cut off date provided in Regularization Rules. The requirement under the Regularisation Rules is that an incumbent was directly appointed on daily wage basis in a government service before 29.6.1991 and are continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the said Rules. The further requirement under the Rules is that he must have possessed requisite qualification required for regular appointment on that post at the time of such employment on daily wage basis.;