Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Prayer in this writ petition is to issue direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date their juniors have been regularized, who have been impleaded as respondents No. 4 to 199. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the claim and the case of the petitioners is similar to those of respondents No. 4 to 1999 and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the same benefit, as has been granted to these private respondents i.e. regularisation of services, as per the policy which was prevalent at that time. Counsel contends that as in the case of the private respondents directions were issued by this Court to consider their claim for regularization, in view of the policy of the Government, similar was the direction issued by this Court in the case of the petitioners in CWP No. 6341 of 2005 titled Bijender and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 24.11.2005 (Annexure P/3). On the basis of these directions, respondent No.3 considered the case of the petitioners and finding the case to be covered by the policy, recommended the same to respondent No.2. The said recommendation was not accepted by the respondent No.3 in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 . On rejection of the claim of the petitioners, they have approached this Court with the prayer that as in the case of the persons junior to them, they should also be given the benefit of regularization.
(2.) The respondents have filed the reply and have taken the ground as has been so culled out in the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners in compliance of the direction of this Court mentioned above.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.;