Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Since this appeal is pending for the last ten years, the prayer of adjournment is declined. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Contextual facts depict that pursuant to the advertisement for recruitment of 238 Ayurved Chikitsak on adhoc temporary basis the appellants submitted applications but they were not considered for the appointment. The appellants filed writ petitions which were allowed by learned Single Judge on October 19, 1992 a direction was issued to respondents to consider the appellants for the post of Ayurved Chikitsak treating them eligible for recruitment. While issuing directions learned Single Judge observed that if found suitable the appellants be appointed against such posts which were lying vacant. Pursuant to the directions the appellants were given appointment to the post of Ayurved Chikitsak on adhoc temporary basis vide order dated July 9, 1993. The appellants again filed writ petition before learned Single Judge seeking regularisation of their services from 1989 when the persons lower in merit were given appointment pursuant to advertisement dated July 4, 1989. The appellants also prayed that their services be regularised pursuant to the notification dated April 8, 1996. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated March 23, 1998. Against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the directions of learned Single Judge the appellants ought to have been given appointment w.e.f. 1989 itself and they were also entitled for regularisation of their services pursuant to the notification dated April 8, 1996. We find no merit in the submission.;