VIKAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) PETITIONERS are challenging the advertisement dated 08.12.2011 (Annexure13 to the writ petition) published by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "NOIDA"), respondent no. 3 for making recruitment on various Class III and IV posts.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY in some matters the observations made by Apex Court in para 53 of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) were sought to be construed as if the persons even if their engagement made without following procedure prescribed in statute but continued for some times are entitled for regularisation but this misconstruction was clarified by Apex Court in subsequent decisions, some of which are, State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575; Rajasthan Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Bikaner Vs. Devi Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 505; State of Karnataka Vs. G.V. Chandrashekhar (2009) 4 SCC 342; Harminder Kaur and others Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 13 SCC 90; Union of India & another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & another (2010) 2 SCC 422; Satya Prakash & others Vs. State of Bihar & others (2010) 4 SCC 179; and, State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal & others, 2011(2) SCC 429.