Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard Sri A. K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and Sri S. C. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 to 4.
The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.2009, passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby considering all the aspects of the matter the Tribunal has directed the petitioners no. 2 to 4 to re- consider the case of opposite party no. 2 for regular appointment w.e.f. 01.02.1989 and to grant him seniority w.e.f. from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.02.1986. Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no rule for regularisation in the department concerned so far. He further submits that so far as the cases of other persons are concerned, those persons have been given regular appointment by the Selection Committee in accordance with the law without adopting any rule of regularisation whereas looking into one adverse entry and one punishment order i. e. stoppage of one increment, it is not possible to give regular appointment to the opposite party no.
2. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Yadav, learned counsel for opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 informs that while passing the impugned judgment & order the learned Tribunal has discussed all the aspects of the matter and thereafter has issued direction to the petitioners no. 2 to 4 to consider the case of opposite party no. 2 for regular appointment. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is required by this Court and let the matter be considered by the department itself, with whatever fate of the consideration. Since no further adjudication is required by this Court at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observations Order Date :- 22.6.2010 ashok