SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined the prayer in the writ-petition to the extent, a direction be issued to the respondent-State to consider regularization of the petitioners in terms of the Regularisation Rules notified vide Resolution dated 13.02.2015. The learned counsel tenders a copy of order passed in W.P.(S) No.2538 of 2015.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily-wages on 01.02.1984 and the petitioner no.2 on 01.08.1983. It is admitted by the respondent-State that they are continuously working since then. However, an objection has been taken pleading that they are not working against sanctioned post. In the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 18.07.2016 filed on behalf of the respondent no.6, the respondents have pleaded that there are 82 sanctioned posts of Forest Guards in Khunti Forest Division. The said affidavit discloses that 71 posts of Forest Guards and 6 class-IV posts are vacant.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the petitioners who are working as daily-wagers would not come under the purview of the Regularisation Rules framed by the State in compliance of direction issued by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.;