Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. In CM No. 5423 of 2017, the prayer made is for being impleaded as respondents in CWP No. 17206 of 2014. The services of the applicants herein were regularised. Learned counsel for the applicants adopted the arguments already addressed by other counsels.

31. In CWP No. 77 of 2015, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein are seeking regularisation of their services in view of the policies. He adopted all the arguments already addressed. He further submitted that regularisation is not making permanent appointment or confirmation on the post. It is only removing the irregularities in the process of appointment.

32. In response, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who have challenged various policies framed for regularisation of services, submitted that the argument raised regarding non-impleadment of persons likely to be 16 of 49 affected as party to the writ petitions is totally mis-conceived. This Court vide order dated 2.9.2016, had already directed that regularisation orders, if any, passed earlier shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. It was for the State to have informed all the persons, who were likely to be affected after the said order was passed. The object was not to force all to come to the court. In any case, number of employees who were regularised have already moved applications for being impleaded and they are representing their cause. Further, under challenge is the policies of the Government. Whatever is the result, everyone will be bound by that. While challenging any law or a policy, all the persons, who may be affected cannot possibly be impleaded as parties. It is not possible for the petitioners to collect information regarding all the persons who are regularised under illegal policies in different departments. The contention has been raised only to frustrate the relief. They are all back door entrants.