- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- appellants and having perused the material placed on record we find no reason to consider interference in the order dated 09.07.2012 as passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.6785/2012.
(2.) THE petitioners-appellants filed the said writ petition with the following prayers: - "(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioners and regularized them on the post of Sweeper with all consequential benefits. (ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to give the preference to the petitioners for appointment on the post of sweeper in pursuance of the advertisement (Ann.8). (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." The learned Single Judge declined the said prayers and dismissed the writ petition after noticing the facts that the petitioners were in service earlier and their services were terminated; and upon their raising industrial dispute, the matter was referred to the Labour Court where ultimately, the award was made on 17.01.2011 in the manner that the employer was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- to each of the appellants as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The award so made by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur was attempted to be questioned by the petitioners before this Court in CWP No.3056/2011. The said writ petition was considered and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.11.2011. However, the learned Single Judge in the last made an observation that dismissal of the petition would not otherwise be of impediment for the respondents to consider regularization of the petitioners in terms of the process initiated by them.
(3.) THEREAFTER, the petitioners filed the writ petition leading to this appeal with reference to the facts that the respondents had taken up the process of recruitment to the post of Safai Karamchari without regularizing them. The learned Single Judge has found the claim as made by the petitioners totally bereft of substance with the observations that when the petitioners-appellants are not in service, the question of regularization would not arise at all because regularization could be made in relation to the person who is continuing in service.;