HARISH CHAND RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Impleadment Application is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to implead the persons referred to in the impleadment application as respondent Nos. 4 to 43 during the course of the day.

(2.) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nagendra Mohan, Advocate on behalf of petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43, Sri Anil Bhushan, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners their names were liable to be placed at Serial No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid list of Upper Division Clerk (Letter No. 323 dated 4th February, 2002 ). It is further stated that the persons, whose name have been mentioned in the aforesaid list for regularization, did not possess requisite qualifications prescribed at the time of Ad-hoc appointment and therefore, regularization offered was illegal.